…the Likud faction, which has a hard-line right-wing bloc, was easy on Netanyahu. MK Danny Danon told him at the meeting, “You gave an excellent speech in Congress. Maybe you should run for president on behalf of the Republicans? I hear they’re looking for a candidate. You could be the man.”

Netanyahu cut into Danon’s remarks: “My visit to Washington was bipartisan. I made sure of that. When the members of the Republican Party’s Jewish leadership wanted to visit me at Blair House, I asked them to come with the parallel forum from the Democratic Party – and I met with them both.”

The rest of the dialogue appears only in the Hebrew version of the article:

“Anyway,” insisted Danon, “you should run for president on behalf of the Republicans. You are the man they are looking for”.

“If you want, you should run,” replied Netanyahu.

By Eyal Clyne

a) Netanyahu’s speech before Congress: Just a speech, what’s the big deal?

Ha’aretz reports that following Netanyahu’s speeches to AIPAC and Congress last week, his popularity soared 13 percent among Israelis. Netanyahu said nothing new, and didn’t make any promises for change, and yet most of my fellow Israelis absolutely loved it. 46 percent went as far as reporting that it made them feel proud. This fact alone calls for explanation: why did this banal speech, repeating old arguments and policies, make so many Israelis feel that it was significant and a source of pride?

In terms of policy it was yesterday’s news.

Netanyahu said (again) that Israel is “willing” to see a Palestinian state but as always only under impossible preconditions that no reasonable Palestinian representative could ever accept. Now he claims to agree to the two-state solution, but at the same time rejects its borders. He promises (the Americans) that he will be “generous”, but at the same time he declares there will be no compromises on any issue. Just like Barak, Sharon and Olmert before him, he presented the principles of all Israeli government parties since the late 1990s. Really nothing new. While negotiations with the Palestinians are clearly not an option for it, Israel (re)turns to negotiate with the West on the terms of continuing its 44-years-old military rule. So why the great excitement?

The speech was significant less in terms of policy than in its ability to capture the essence of the collective mood in Israel today.

It was not “the speech of his life” as Israeli media repeatedly titled it, but the speech of their lives. Our lives. At this point in time our region is becoming more democratic, global action to end the occupation and siege is intensifying, and the appeal to recognize the Palestinian right to freedom is gaining momentum. Israelis fear one thing most of all: change.

In particular, any change that might affect their unshakable ability to control territory and resources. With the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in the background, protests in the occupied territories, and possible UN recognition of a State of Palestine coming up in September, Israelis are gradually becoming aware of the growing gap between their self-justifying bubble and their global image.

But they still cannot see their share of the responsibility. Instead, just like Netanyahu, they repeat familiar clichés, listening to them again and again, persuading themselves that they did and are doing nothing wrong, reciting it day and night, and finally believing it, and believing they can spread this belief to others.

Last month, the leading Israeli satire show “Eretz Nehederet” (broadcast weeks before the Middle East speeches in the United States) successfully captured the morbid atmosphere of what may be coming, by comparing the government’s stubbornness to the events leading up to the ancient tragedy of Massada:

b) ‘There are always two sides to every story; and our side is correct’

It’s not surprising, really, that most Israelis loved hearing Netanyahu’s articulation of their self-flattery. His speech to Congress was a concentrated dish compiled of all the favorite thoughts Israelis hold about themselves. A collection of every Arab contribution to the conflict, mixed with flavor enhancers of some religious-right-wing perspectives of Jewish history with an icing defining our relations with all our neighbors and Palestinians (‘the Arabs’, possibly with a handful of ‘Iran,’ ‘Islam’ and a pinch of ‘terrorism’) – served with a cold, refreshing and decisive ruling that it is all their fault. We did all we could, made no mistakes, and have nothing to apologize for. De-li-cious.

Most decisive in this recipe is not what’s in but what’s left out.

First, the fact that Israel, and Israel alone has been exerting an abusive military rule over millions of people for 44 years, and makes no promises of any deadline to end it. Thus, while we’re reminded of the ingredient of the Arab rejection of a Jewish state 63 years ago, there’s nothing in the mix about the terror of the Irgun, the unlawful destruction of hundreds of civilian villages in 1948, our military rule over Arab citizens of Israel until 1966, the massacres of Qibbiyya or Kfar Kassem, the bombing of civil airplanes, the refusal to give minefield maps to Lebanon after 18 years of occupation of South Lebanon, the ongoing violation of others’ airspace and waters, or illegally capturing and settling lands belonging to Syria and the Palestinians to this very day (and Egypt and Lebanon in the past).

We heard repeatedly of their terrorism, but nothing about our own expulsions, revenge, unlawful imprisonments or systematic oppression. Let alone an offer to compensate the injured innocent victims of the white phosphorus we admittedly used on densely populated civilian areas two and a half years ago. Now you tell me, when only the parts we’d like to hear are emphasized, who wouldn’t love the story?

c) Democratic! Democratic! Democratic!

The speech was very clear in emphasizing security, but avoided many Israeli practices that have nothing to do with security, such as the ongoing demolitions of hundreds of Palestinian homes every year, the prohibitions and discrimination in water, the confiscations of private property, the limitations on the right to education, health and employment, and the right of assembly in areas under our military rule.

Instead of mentioning that millions live under our rule with no political rights, we’d rather repeatedly elaborate the advantages of the democratic rights we “allow” our Arab citizens. We fail to mention that with regards to this minority, Israel is not democratic in the sense that Westerners think. First, everybody can vote and be voted to Israel’s parliament, but all parties must first agree to the Jewish “nature” of the state. Second, rights are not equal by law (in marriage, immigration and land ownership). Third, rights are not equal in practice (in the deliberate and well-documented institutional discrimination in education, law enforcement, housing, infrastructure, and public sector employment). Fourth, state-sanctioned racist norms and practices are on the rise (such as racist bans on housing, employment, or ‘mixed’ marriages).

When saying that Israel is a democracy, do we bear in mind that the Israeli police disperse Jewish and Arab protests using different means? No matter how violent a Jewish protest may be (settlers, ultra-orthodox, strikers etc.) the police never send in disguised gunmen to make arrests or shoot rubber or live bullets, as they often do in protests by its Arab citizens. Why not ask them if they feel it’s a democracy? Only last week, a new bill was approved, legalizing employment discrimination in the civil service against anyone who didn’t serve in the military, although Israeli governments do not draft Arab citizens.

These are a few examples of many. Granting citizenship to Arabs sounds good but is not a principle of state practice. Look at the right to housing. Out of more than 600(!) new towns, cities, villages and settlements that Israeli governments have constructed to respond to the needs of its citizens, not one was built to answer the needs of its Arab citizens, who constitute more than one fifth of its population, and who also face limitations when seeking to develop existing towns, or to reside in ‘non-Arab’ – that is –Jewish, areas.

As for Israel’s treatment of the Oslo Accords, the double standard Israelis operate here is so deep it can’t be summarized here.

Remaining blind to these facts is essential for us Israelis to maintain ourselves as historically righteous victims. So, yes. These speeches were so much fun, because they allow us to forget it all, and even receive some friendly applause.

d) Whats next? Exactly what we did last time

Brigadier: Okay, so what do you do if the Egyptians approach the post?
Reserve soldier: The same thing we did in ‘56.
Brigadier: And what did you do in ‘56?
Reserve soldier: The same thing we did in ‘48. Nothing’s better than that, surely.
Brigadier: And what did you do in ‘48?
Reserve soldier: I don’t know… 30 years… you try and remember…

(Taken from: Halfon Hill Does Not Respond, A popular Israeli movie from 1976)

So what should we expect next? If we are to believe Netanyahu, we should expect nothing. No change at all, which is exactly what we did last time, and countless times before that. No need to even consider replacing the far-right coalition partners. We have always been the masters of buying time, with any government. For 44 years we’ve been dividing our time between periods of useless negotiation with “the Arabs” and other periods of negotiation with the West. In the meantime, the military occupation goes on, and the settlements and violence too.
Just as our speeches are old news, we too refuse to change with the times. Netanyahu’s speech, along with our daily speeches, are recycled versions of Shamir’s famous policy quote: “The Arabs are the same Arabs, and the sea is the same sea”. One hand stubbornly rejects any proposal, and the other constantly passes the responsibility for it exclusively onto the other side.

Eyal Clyne is an Israeli researcher of society in Israel-Palestine. He focuses on the conflict and other Israeli political issues. Some of the posts on his Hebrew blog appear also in English and elsewhere. This piece was originally published on JNews.

———————-

+972 magazine needs your support. Check this post to see why, and how can you help to keep this project going

Yesterday Israeli news reported that the county’s Second Authority for Television and Radio would be investigating the conduct of Channel 2 broadcaster Yonit Levy during transmission of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to congress last week. The Second Authority is the regulating body for all commercial broadcasting in Israel.

Levy reportedly added in her own commentary while translating The Prime Minister’s speech. After Netanyahu said that

Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel!

Following this statement Levy added:

Naturally, if they could, some of them would speak with the Prime Minister about the discrimination they experience in Israeli society, but this is not something the Prime Minister wishes to discuss.

This is indeed her own commentary, but according to a representative of the Authority’s complaints department (where dozens of complaints were reportedly received about Levy’s comments), Channel 2 reserves the right to include commentary and has full sovereignty over its reporting style.

Indeed, anyone familiar with televised news in Israel, or anywhere in the world for that matter, should know that there is no such thing as objective news, and that the broadcaster always interpolates his or her own commentary. Furthermore, it is clear that this was her own statement separate of Netanayhu’s speech, since she referred to him in third person.

Channel 2 CEO Avi Weiss defended Levy, asserting that her conduct did not constitute anything out of the ordinary custom and that censoring her would damage the promotion of public discourse.

This is not the first time Levy has been accused of injecting her own take on the news into Channel 2 reports. During the Gaza War in 2009, there were complaints received about Levy expressing empathy with Gazans during interviews, and suggesting that the war is unjustified based on the massively in-proportionate ratio of casualties on each side.

—————————

+972 magazine needs your support. check this post to see why, and how can you help to keep this project going

Sheldon Adelson, Israel Hayom publisher (photo: 7th Eye / cc-by-nc-sa)

Unlike the confrontation between the White House and Jerusalem over the settlements during the administration’s first year, I think that the current rift has more to do with tones and personal mistrust than actual policy differences. More than anything, it seems that President Obama’s Middle East speech was meant to help Israel avoid isolation at the UN, but Netanyahu overreacted, and later decided to play tough, mainly for political reasons. As I wrote yesterday, it worked out for him quite well.

What do people around the prime minister really think of Obama? A good example was given just before Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, in a phone interview Jewish Week’s Gary Rosenblatt conducted with Gambling Billionaire Sheldon Adelson.

Apart from being a personal friend of the Netanyahus, Adelson is the publisher of the pro-Netanyahu tabloid Israel Hayom (“Israel Today”), currently the most widely read paper in Israel (speculations held that the paper was started by Adelson to help Netanyahu personally). Many of Netanyahu’s men were on Adelson’s payroll until recently: The head of the Prime Minister’s Office, Nathan Eshel, was a deputy manager at Israel Hayom before joining the Neyanyahu campaign; former National Security Advisor Uzi Arad was part of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Research; the current NSA, Yaakov Amidror, was a pundit for Israel Hayom; the ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was a fellow at Adelson’s conservative think-tank, the Shalem Center.

And what does Adelson think of Obama? Here it goes:

Any of the Republican hopefuls “are going to be 180 degrees” different from President Obama in terms of “what’s good for this country and for Israel,” Adelson said, adding that Obama is “the worst president” for Israel.

“All the steps he’s taken against the state of Israel are liable to bring about the destruction of the state,” he asserted.

Like Netanyahu, Adelson will praise peace, but object to the international community’s definition of the two-state solution:

“Can you make peace with people whose sole mission is to destroy you?” he asked. “You don’t have someone who wants to make peace with you.”

He said that for the Palestinian leadership, “the two-state solution is a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people,” and he sees no distinction between Hamas, the terror group that controls Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

“They sat with [PLO leader Yassir] Arafat for 40 years,” Adelson said of Abbas and Fayyad. “When he was planning terror, did they recuse themselves and leave the room?”

He said he saw no chance for peace as long as Palestinian children from the age of 3 are taught that “a Jew is a swine and ape” and should be killed.

“I favor peace,” he said, “but to be pro-Israel you also need to have a position vis a vis Israel’s enemies. And no reasonable person would make Israel sign with people pledged to destroy them.”

(h/t rotter.net)

—————————

+972 magazine needs your support. Check this post to see why, and how can you help to keep this project going

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be satisfied with the result of his visit to the United States. A new poll published today shows growing support among the Israeli public for his positions regarding the two-state solution.

According to the “Hagal Hachadash” poll, published by the pro-Neatnayhu tabloid Israel Hayom, only 28 percent of the public support president Obama’s guidelines for a solution based on the 1967 borders. 61 percent supports the positions presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu in his speeches in Washington, those regarding a continued Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and the rejection of a compromise that would divide Jerusalem into two capitals.

If elections were held today, Netanyahu’s Likud party would make gains, collecting up to 32 Knesset seats (it now holds 27). The rightist-Orthodox bloc would win 69 sets, while the center-left would hold on to an all-time low of 51 seats.

One interesting figure: Even in this poll, Kadima keeps its current 28 seats, indicating that Netanyahu won’t chip at Tzipi Livni’s base.

A different poll, conducted by the right-leaning Jerusalem Post, shows that only 12 percent of the Jewish public considers President Obama pro-Israel, while 40 percent of Israeli Jews categorize him as pro-Palestinian.

However, it is interesting to note that according to Israel Hayom’s poll, Obama is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian (38 to 37 percent), and a clear majority of the public – 68 percent – says that “president Obama is committed to Israel’s security.” Some of the difference between the two polls can be explained by the fact that the Israel Hayom sample included Palestinian citizens, while the Jpost had a Jews-only sample.

Haaretz‘s poll from Thursday had Netanyahu’s approval rise by 13 points.

A few notes regarding these numbers: Earlier this week I quoted a Maariv poll that had 57 percent of the public somewhat supportive of the positions outlined in President Obama’s speech. It seems that the readers who posted critical comments of this item were right, and the way Maariv framed the questions in the poll “tilted” some of the public towards more moderate positions.

At the same time, we did have a series of polls in recent years which had around half of the Jewish public agreeing to a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. What I think we are witnessing now is a shift of the public to the right, following the positions expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Since Netanyahu became Prime Minister, he was urged to present his own diplomatic vision. The thinking was that the PM is strong enough, and the public will follow him wherever he goes. It seems that Netanyahu finally made up his mind: He basically rejected the two-state solution, and as expected, many Israelis went with him.

Where do we go from here? I’ll try to deal with that question in my next post.

————————————

+972 magazine needs your support. Check this post to see why, and how can you help to keep this project going

An unrecognized Arab village in Israel (flickr/Physicians for Human Rights - Israel)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the U.S. Congress can easily be characterized as hypocritical and inconsistent. He presented Israel as the country seeking peace while speaking of the Palestinians as enemies of reconciliation and coexistence. His hypocrisy didn’t stop with issues of the occupation and Palestinians in the West Bank. He went on to brag about Israeli democracy being a model for the world. He shamelessly claimed that Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs across the Middle East. His comparison of Israel to the totalitarian regimes of the Middle East was an interesting choice. There are many Arab minorities living in Europe, South America, Canada and the U.S.; however, Netanyahu chose to compare Israel to the falling dictatorships rather than to the first world.

“Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We’re proud in Israel that over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades [applause]. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights [applause]. Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of 1 percent are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel [applause].”

Netanyahu wanted to present Israel as the only place where Arabs have a true democracy. It makes me wonder if Netanyahu had been listening to his cabinet members’ attacks on Arabs in Israel or if he bothered to ask any “Arabs” of what they think of Israeli democracy. Netanyahu spoke from his imagination, ignoring the reality in which Palestinian Israelis live.

He neglected the fact that the current Knesset is the most racist since the creation of the state of Israel. On a regular basis, laws are proposed and passed to limit the freedom of non-Jews in Israel. A law that segregates residential communities, a law that requires Arabs to forget their past and forbids them from mourning their loss in 1948. Other laws propose to control their education, banning them from learning their own history and limiting their employment in public service. Despite all of this, Netanyahu boldly and arrogantly claimed that Israel is the only place where Arabs enjoy true freedom.

Netanyahu’s attempt to polish Israel’s image and conceal its mistreatment of Palestinians citizens of Israel through comparisons to the Arab world is nothing new. I have heard the same comparison from many Israelis when discussing human rights violations and the second-class status of Palestinian Israeli citizenship. Setting a low standard for the state of Israel is the best way justify the mistreatment of non-Jews.

In a dialogue meeting I attended five years ago between Israelis and Palestinians, a similar comment was made by an Israeli who bragged about Israel’s “wonderful” treatment of the Arabs. We allow them to have Knesset members, they can vote, they have health care and more money than the Arabs in the neighboring countries. They are better off than their Arab brethren in the Middle East, and therefore should not complain. In the same dialogue meeting there was an American Jew who grew up in America at the time of the Second World War. He reminded the Israeli defender of Israel of a similar comparison that was made about 65 years ago.

He told us that in the Second World War era, Blacks, Jews and other minorities were treated as second-class citizens in America. You couldn’t get a good job if you were a Jew. He told us about sending dozens of resumes to big companies and being rejected merely because he was a Jew. The argument some used back then was that America was the best place for Jews to live in. Don’t complain, they were told, Look at what Europe does to the Jews. Jews are way better off in America than in Germany or Poland. It was true. It was much better to live in America than to live in Germany in those days. However that didn’t justify the mistreatment of Jews in America. Jews in America didn’t want to be treated a little better, but fought hard to be treated with dignity and respect and enjoy their full rights.

Netanyahu’s presentation of “Arabs” in Israel was deceitful and those who gave him a standing ovation in Congress chose ignorance over truth. Democracies are not supposed to  discriminate between their citizens based on race, color or religion. Israel does.

Netanyahu and Boehner (Flickr/TalkMediaNews)

Israel still has Arab villages that are not recognized and cannot receive services, while illegal settlements in the West Bank enjoy full services and security.  The fact that Arab countries treat their citizens badly doesn’t give Israel the moral or legal authority to treat its Palestinian citizens poorly.

Israel must face reality and look in the mirror if it wants to be a true democracy. Netanyhu must realize that Israel is not immune from the Arab Spring. There are consequences for discriminating against your own citizens, and Palestinians citizens of Israel are not different from other Arabs rising up for their rights and dignity.

This is the time for Prime Minister Netanyahu to look around at his neighboring countries and learn from the lessons that Egypt and Tunisia have learned. You can lie to your people and oppress them for decades, but eventually the desire for freedom, equality and dignity will prevail.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said a lot of things in his address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress on Tuesday, most of them foolish and some of them offensive. But one of his very first statements was among the most important: “Israel has no better friend than America,” he claimed, “and America has no better friend than Israel.”

The former is accurate. The latter is absurd.

These are almost my exact words, and I am obviously in agreement, and gratified that a great blogger like Yglesias had the same thought. He goes on to dismantle Netanyahu’s claim much more thoroughly than I did, and does so from an American perspective, so I warmly recommend reading his column. If anything, I think he is not harsh enough on Israel, considering that even within the framework of its current extreme policies, our government could still find some room to accommodate US interests, yet refuses to do even that little.

This settlement, known as “Maale Zeitim” and owned by Florida tycoon Irving Moskowitz, was begun in the 1990′s under Ehud Olmert’s premiership and is an ugly barricaded building under constant 24-hour surveillance (funded by my tax shekels) just across the Mount of Olives cemetery – literally an island of Jews in the middle of a densely populated Palestinian neighborhood. It is adjacent to another settlement called Maale David, which, if connected and completed, will become together the largest settlement in East Jerusalem

The activists from Solidarity-Sheikh Jarrah protested the gratuitous ceremony:

This Friday, the weekly protest in Sheikh Jarrah will be moved to Ras el Amud.

A new poll by Haaretz shows a bump of no less than 13 percents in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s numbers following his visit to the US, in which he expressed his opposition to a return to the 1967 borders and  for a compromise in Jerusalem. 47 percent of the public see the trip as a success, and 51 percent of Israelis are currently satisfied with their Prime Minister.

A Maariv poll published yesterday saw a rise in the Knesset seats of Netanyahu’s Likud party, from the current 27 to 30.

While many polls showed a somewhat steady support in the Jewish public for a two states solution based on 67′ borders, it seems that Israelis liked the way Netanyahu confronted president Obama, and especially the warm welcome he received at the US Congress.

I continue to predict that we will now see a decline in the support for the 67′-based two states solution, as the PM’s messages will sink with the public. The confrontational attitude Netanyahu adopts is likely—at least in the short run—to move more Israelis to the right, thus making a compromise even less likely than it is right now.

By Hagai El-Ad

“This path [to liberty] is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before a joint meeting of Congress, May 24, 2011

The focus in Netanyahu’s speech on the – truly – “epic battle now unfolding in the Middle East” was likely meant to invoke images from Tahrir Square while diverting any attention from Israel’s own failures as we stumble and fall on the path of liberty. Indeed, as the sages have taught us, “he who wants to lie, will distance his testimony.” So, let’s try this paragraph out – not an ocean away or even in one of the neighboring countries, but rather in a place where Netanyahu’s government actually is accountable to whether these words amount to something: Let’s unpack this nth standing ovation – in the occupied Palestinian territories.

“…when governments permit protests in town squares“: In the occupied territories, the IDF views all demonstrations, including non-violent protests, as illegal breaches of public order. Local Palestinian leadership involved in organizing protests is targeted by the security forces – harassed, interrogated, detained, and jailed. Casualties among demonstrators have been recorded in numerous protests throughout the territories over recent years.

“… when limits are placed on the powers of rulers“: The occupied territories are subject to military law. International conventions meant to place limits on the powers of rulers in such situations are constantly violated. From the transfer of parts of Israel’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies to limiting the access of Palestinians to some of their own lands, the ruler of the occupied territories is using its powers to advance the interests of the occupying power over the rights of the occupied people.

“… when judges are beholden to laws“: To begin with, many of Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) rulings, over the years, backed actions by the military commander that were not beholden to international law. Some examples include house demolitions, deportations, allowing the building of settlements and the route of the separation barrier within the occupied territories. Further, the legal system in the occupied territories is separate and discriminatory at its core; the occupied Palestinians are subject to military law, while the Israeli settlers living in the occupied territories are subject to a different legal system – to Israel’s civilian courts. Further compounding this lawless reality is the lack of accountability of Israeli security forces, the lack of enforcement in the many cases of settler violence, and the fact that the government itself ignores some decisions of Israel’s own HCJ. In the occupied territories, the “law” itself is a core aspect of how an indefensibly unjust system perpetuates itself.

“… when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule”: if anything, the prolonged occupation – now in its fifth decade – demonstrates how human rights can be crushed as the ruler prevents protests and limits other forms of freedom of speech, when the ruler breaches limits on its powers, when judges do not enforce the law – and when the law itself is unjust.

Is this a result of “tribal loyalties” – of the continued preference of one group of people over another? Should the reality in the occupied territories be recognized, in Netanyahu’s words, as “mob rule“?  Or will we, Israelis, finally make a real demand at this historic moment in the Middle East that Netanyahu’s words of “the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity” include all who presently live under our government’s rule?

Hagai El-Ad is the Executive Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel