+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Israel bars reporter for 10 years for 'having political agenda'

German journalist Martin Lejeune was detained and interrogated for 24 hours before being deported. A journalist with political viewpoints not aligned with the regime’s is a real danger to democracy, it appears.

By Idan Gillo (translated by Alan Horowitz)

The good news is we can all sleep soundly tonight. A grave danger was thwarted in a timely manner. And not just temporarily, but for the next 10 years. The bad news is that the danger wasn’t related to us, but rather – and this is also doubtful – to the Israeli regime.

A full disclosure is called for: I know Martin Lejeune personally; he is a freelance reporter who during the summer of 2014, risking his own life and livelihood, reported from the Gaza Strip independently of IDF spokespersons or any corporate news agency. I met him in a Berlin café in 2014, just before his famous trip to the Gaza Strip. We have been in touch ever since. Lejeune, as someone dedicated to investigative reporting, is constantly exposed to hostility, not just in Israel, but also in Germany. He will survive; he’s a descendent of the Huguenots, and they have some experience with political persecution. However, the story is not just about Lejeune; it story touches all who, either by choice or by necessity, live between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. The story is about the nature of Israel’s government – in actuality already for a very long time, but especially these days.

Here’s the short of the story: Earlier this month, at 10 p.m. on a Monday, after about 20 hours of detention and interrogation Lejeune was told that he was being denied entry to Israel because he is a security risk: “You are not a reporter, you have a political agenda.”

I will not get into the wisdom of this decision. There are indeed multitudinous mechanisms that stand between the citizen and the truth. Why resort to such a far-reaching action that will certainly cause a stir? Israel has, on multiple occasions, denied entry of public figures into territories under its unfettered control and did so mainly to enhance its reputation in the world.

So Lejeune now has the honor of joining the list of intellectuals, journalists, artists, activists and, of course, regular citizens, who were not born with the proper Jewish privilege and are not allowed entry into Israeli territory. It is not up to me to mimic dark government offices that deliberate and make decisions that are supposed to shield Israel from its enemies, both imagined and real.

Indeed, this type of regime not only requires many enemies, but also knows how to occasionally reward its loyal servants. Thus, censors, generals, police commanders, intelligence agency heads, and other self-perceived gatekeepers, sycophants and activist cheerleaders are promoted within government ranks and who defend nothing but the system itself. So why should it surprise us that all sorts of military and security sector appointments are turned into media hype in the Sparta of the Middle East?

To be sure, this is not the first time that Israel has harassed Lejeune and interfered with his investigative reporting. Of note is this exchange between him and Ron Paz, defender of Israel (against what?) in his role in the Foreign Press Department of the Government Press Office (GPO), during [Lejeune’s] application for a press card. “How do we determine if a person is a reporter or an activist?”, Paz asked himself rhetorically. “Many borderline cases enjoy the Israeli benefit of the doubt”, argued Paz as he basked in the liberal generosity of the Israeli regime in comparison to … the Hamas regime in Gaza. Indeed, the functionary has chosen to seek justification vis-à-vis the truly lofty. How long are we to be consoled by the relative advantages of the Israeli regime over that of Hamas and its ilk?

Paz continued and made clear to Lejeune that his case, as opposed to the borderline cases that the regime tends to accede to, is clear and therefore relatively simple. Lejeune, it seems, can be classified with those indisputably extreme and incorrigible cases who do not approach news in Israel with journalistic ethics, but have adopted, God save us, a critical political approach. The regime’s representative permits himself to decide all this.

Exactly what is that great danger that lies in store for Israel from a 35-year old reporter who does not subscribe to the ultimate Zionist truth? Mr. Paz did not find necessary to elaborate. Instead, he lists Lejeune’s transgressions against the enlightened political entity reigning over Zion: “regular” participation in anti-Israel demonstrations, and participation in the Gaza flotilla, “not just to ‘report,’ but with a political agenda.” Mr. Paz admits that he refrained from adding on a long list of deviations from the Zionist line apparently expected of a visiting reporter, and justifiably so. By doing so, he would have to admit that he conducted surveillance of Martin Lejeune for some two years. A celebration of democracy. All for naught; Israel has tagged Lejeune, the reporter, as a pro-Palestinian activist. Heaven forbid.

Then Mr. Paz bombards Lejeune with questions, as if the accusations would be deemed grave enough for listeners to cover their ears: have you participated in a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Europe? Did you deliver an address at the University of Hamburg titled “What really happened in Gaza?” Have you presented yourself as anti-Zionist and as a reporter? Have you called on Germany to stop exporting weapons to Israel? And, of course, the question of funding that we are all so fond of here. And so on and so forth. Mr. Paz valorously sums up: “This is, in my opinion, a case in which Israeli democracy must defend itself.” Israeli democracy: it is now safe from the likes of Lejeune for 10 years. Ten years. This, just because he is not one of the regime’s fans.

Meanwhile, he was detained while awaiting deportation. And the brilliant justification for the official denial of entry: “Avoidance of illegal immigration.” Very funny.

Martin Lejeune

It sometimes seems that the authorities rather like these kinds of challenges. Then it will tell its citizens that they are both in the same boat. This is, of course, a big advantage for the government: most Israelis do not consider the difference between society and state. This becomes well apparent in the colloquial language that politicians and journalists like to bandy about: eternal confusion between the state, the regime, on the one side and its inhabitants, society, on the other side – “The whole nation”, etc.

And anyone who has passed through the Israel education system and is attentive to its media communications will fall into the trap – unless s/he belongs to the population sectors most egregiously discriminated against – particularly discriminated against so that the others will identify with and feel kinship and common interests with the government. It is well known that the most efficient way to dominate and repress people is by differential distribution of privilege. And this pays off for the government. Even those who go out and demonstrate against government policy are equipped with Israeli flags, the flag of the regime that represses them. It would be interesting to know if these demonstrators are thought to have a “political agenda.”

So everything happens in the first person plural – including criticism of the government. And the “last one” [Netanyahu] hears this and laughs all the way to the bank. As long as the majority believe as Louis IV, in spite of everything, that the state and he are one and the same – then the corrupt regime is secure and at ease.

It is not easy to follow the news. A specialized body is required for this: thick elephant skin, rhinoceros horn, obtuse heart and more. The question is what else must we become inured to in Israel: poverty, unemployment, public summary executions, hate demonstrations, racism, house demolitions and more.

A reporter wanted to enter Israel. So he wanted to. He has been banned entry for 10 years. Is it still possible to talk about ethics within the context of Israel? It is very doubtful. As the German jurist Carl Schmitt, who contributed his talents to the service of the Nazi regime until the latter became sick of him, once said, “This is not legitimacy, but dictatorship.” And indeed, this is dictatorial administration. Not “like”. Not “reminds of”. Not “corresponds to”. Not “amorphous.” Not “might be construed to be.” Entirely, without quotation marks. And without diversions. Without the chasm that separates the designator from the designee. In actuality, this is beyond administration. It is dictatorship.

It is not easy, therefore, to follow the news, but also it may not be so important to do so and it is mainly unsatisfying. Beyond all this, it is worthwhile that we begin to quietly and seriously ask ourselves: Who is this regime good for?

Idan Gillo is a doctoral student in German literature at Stanford University. This article was first published in Hebrew on Haokets.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ginger Eis

      Dear Idan Gillo,

      Your article reads rather like the incoherent rants of an angry juvenile anarchist.
      The State Of Israel, like most Western countries, is a country of laws. Like her Western counterparts, her survival as a Democracy based on the Rule of Law, depends by necessity on respect of her laws and enforcement of said laws regardless of whose ox is gored. That is, for example, one of the reasons why a former Israeli Prez. is languishing today in Israeli jail and a former Prime Minister: Ehud Olmert is heading to jail soon, (I hope they allow me to visit him in jail to spit on him).

      In The Present Case:

      1. The Statute, pursuant to which Martin Lejejune, will be removed and barred from entering Israel is clear and stated in the Order handed over to him. The reasons for barring Martin Lejejune are well known to Martin Lejejune. Martin Lejejune (a) entered or resided in Israel in contravention of the law and/or (b)supplied false information in order to obtain, for himself or for another, a visa for a permit of residence in Israel and/or (c)infringes any of the conditions prescribed in the visa or permit of residence granted him under this Law and/or (d)contravened other provision(s) the Entry into Israel Law and/or other regulations made thereunder. The offences committed by Martin Lejejune are punishable with imprisonment for up to one year. But Israel chose an administrative preventive measure, instead of bring the full force of the criminal law to bare on Martin Lejejune.

      4. Martine Lejejune can appeal the Order with the Ministry of Interior and present all the evidence and arguments he has got to refute the allegations of the Ministry of Interior. If the Ministry of interior rejects his appeal, then:

      5. Martin Lejejune can appeal the decision of the Ministry of Interior in the District Court in Israel. There again, Martin Lejejune will have ANOTHER chance present all the evidence and arguments he has got to refute the allegations of the Ministry of Interior. If the Court rejects his appeal, then:

      6. Martin Lejejune can appeal the Judgment of the District Court in the Israeli Supreme Court. There again, Martin Lejejune will have YET ANOTHER chance present all the evidence and arguments he has got to refute the allegations of the Ministry of Interior and show why the Judgment of the District Court cannot stand.

      These rights of due process and fair trials are not granted by the United States to foreigners who find themselves the same situation Martin Lejejune finds himself in Israel.

      Mr. Idan Gillo, pls. STOP the smears, the delegitimization and the demonization of the Jewish State, because they are not the truth; because they are unjust; because they are immoral; because they are unworthy of a “doctoral student”.

      Stop it. Now!

      Reply to Comment
      • brightdarkness

        I was going ask what kind of cheese they wanted for their whine.

        Reply to Comment
      • Hannibal

        Martin Lejeune, German “journalist”, referred to Mohammed Deif, head of Hamas’ military wing, as “a great leader of the Palestinians” and “a popular politician”, calls terrorist methods “the legal and legitimate resistance of the Palestinians”, says that the characterization of Hamas’ activities as “terrorism” is “defamation” of the terrorist regime in Gaza; calls the terrorism of Hamas against Israeli civilians the “herausragende Leistungen der mutigen Kämpfer der Brigaden des Al-Qassam”, etc. Some of Martin’s convictions can be found here: http://martin-lejeune.tumblr.com/post/95291779046/bericht-aus-gaza-zu-den-massakern-von-heute-nacht Martin Lejeune also supports and was on the Gaza-flottila that tried to forcibly break through the naval blockade of Gaza, etc. to make it possible for Hamas to import weapons. It is not too difficult to figure out why the authorities in Israel would see Martin Lejejune as a supporter of terrorism and a threat to the security and safety of Israeli children, men and women.

        Reply to Comment
      • Felix Reichert

        It would indeed be nice if Israel stopped curtailing freedom of speech and of the press, especially of foreign reporters, in a more restrictive way than many authoritarian regimes such as Turkey or Russia.
        Sure, domestic Israeli journalists can (still?) report more or less what and how they want, unless the military censor steps in, but foreign journalists obviously cannot, if they ever want to visit Isral or its illegaly occupied territories again.

        Reply to Comment
        • Merkava

          Here, let me simplify it for you, Felix Reichert.

          1. Right now Al-Jazeera journalists and other Arab journalists are on the ground in Israel and reporting from Israel as they wish without restriction. Israelis and Israeli journalists are not allowed entry to Qatar and other Muslim-Arab countries with the exception of Egypt and Jordan!

          2. Right now Iran’s Press TV and it’s Iranian and radical Islamists journalists are on the ground in Israel and reporting from Israel as it wishes. Israelis are not allowed entry in Iran. Iran’s regime is a mortal enemy of the Jewish State.

          3. YOU are currently on a far-leftist Israeli site that posts vitriol against Israel on a daily basis as it wishes. You yourself have been commenting here as much as you wish spreading propaganda against Israel and providing fabricated quotes to support your own propaganda.

          4. Per capita, Israel has the highest concentration of print-media/newspapers IN THE WORLD, ranging from daily newspapers and periodicals in Arabic, English, Hebrew, Russian, etc. and representing all sections of Israeli society and all kinds political and world views.

          5. There is a difference between journalism and support for and glorification of terrorism. I suppose you know that. Martin Lejeune is a terrorist supporter who glorifies terrorism against Israeli civilians. He is a serious security risk!

          Perhaps the United States should allow entry into the US those who support and glorify Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 terror attacks? Perhaps Germany should allow entry into the Bundesrepublik those who support and glorify the RAF that has killed scores of German politicians and civilians?

          You see why you are a complete propagandist idiot, Felix Reichert?

          Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          FELIX:”..illegaly occupied territories”

          Illegally occupied territories, Felix dear? What exactly is illegal about the occupation?

          …the occupation came about because Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. In the ensuing war, Israel gained control of the WB which Jordan illegally occupied in 1948 in the civil war which their Palestinian Arab allies started in 1947.

          For the last 48 years, the Palestinian Arabs refused to sign a peace deal with us so the occupation continues till such time as they sign a peace deal. That isn’t illegal. One does not let agressors off the hook unless they promise not to commit agression again.

          You as a German should understand that. After all your country was occupied for years even after you leaders signed an unconditional surrender to the allies after your war of agression. Yet nobody called the allied occupation of your country illegal. Then again maybe you and your family probably did call it illegal given your sympathies to dehr Fuhrer…

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Jordan was drawn in after Israel attacked Egypt. And that attack was not preemptive, it was premeditated. For those wishing an objective account of who started it and why, see here:

            http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

            In addition, whether or not Israel’s attack on Egypt was preemptive, and the words of Israel’s own leaders constitute the clearest, frank admission that it was not, its occupation of Palestinian land is illegal.

            Reply to Comment
          • Lewis from Afula

            Ben, there is no such thing as “palestinian land”. The land in question is part of the League of Nations Mandate that was illegally annexed by Jordan in 1948. The aim of the Mandate was to facilitate settlement of the Land by Jews. Article 80 of the UN Charter commits the UN to comply with the raison d’etre of the Original League of Nations Mandate. Article 80 cannot be overwritten by any UN votes including the Security Council nor the General Assembly.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BENNY’s AUTHOR:”It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one.”

            Let’s see let me lay this usual simplistic analysis into true perspective….

            The word preemptive in this context means that Israel needed to attack Egypt in order to stave off danger to itself. And I will prove that indeed that is what Israel faced. It faced danger to it’s very existence irrespective of whether Egypt intended to attack it or not. I will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt Benny.

            Let’s see if you can present a logical counter argument instead of your usual ducking, weaving, asserting and ignoring my arguments, eh Benny-leh….?

            BENNY’s AUTHOR:”Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.”

            So let’s choose to believe this simplistic assertion that Egypt did not intend to attack. But the obvious question to ask in response is for how long? I will leave that question hanging for now, but I will come back to it. Now for my proof that Israel’s very survival was at stake…

            1. In 1967, in the weeks leading up to the war, Egypt kicked out the UN peace keepers from Sinai.

            2. Egypt mobilized it’s troops and so did Syria and Jordan and lined them up along Israel’s border on three fronts.

            3. A loud chorus of threats then occurred from various Arab leaders. They rattled the proverbial can and promised that in the forthcoming battle, they intend to wipe Israel off the map.

            4. To accentuate that threat, blockaded the straits of Tiran which affected Israel’s ability to supply itself with oil from Iran which in those days was ruled by the Shah and was friendly to Israel.

            5. In addition, Egypt sent irregular forces (Fedayeen) from across the border into Israel to carry out acts of sabotage and to murder and maim Israeli civilians (sounds familiar?).

            The least that Israel had to do was to mobilize it’s citizen army and face off the Arab armies. Yes or no, Benny-leh?

            If you say no, then tell me. What would stop the Arab armies marching into Israel’s major cities and take over without even a shot being fired?

            (Watch Benny duck the above question)!!!!!

            …but let me go on. Obviously Israel had to mobilize it’s citizen army. And what then? A face off…

            Even if the author of Benny’s quoted article is right that Egypt did not plan an immediate attack, even then, how long could the face off go on….?!

            …I’ll tell ya, Benny, not all that long. Israel’s economy ground to a halt since the workforce was also the army which had to be mobilized. In fact, Nasser knew that and he actually taunted Israel and dared it to attack. Which eventually had to happen. Had it not happened, Israel’s economy would have collapsed and the three Arab armies would have just picked Israel off.

            As for Jordan just joining the fight to help it’s ally, Egypt. Yea? Thanks, they were still the first to attack Israel because Israel’s preemptive attack was only against Egypt and Syria, NOT against Jordan. Jordan could have just stayed out of the fight (Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out) but they did not listen.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Let’s try to look at this dispassionately. Most of your argument is actually dispatched by Jeremy Hammond. He shows that neither Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any real intention of attacking Israel; that they knew that did not have the forces to do it; and that Israel’s leaders, and the Johnson administration, knew that. Israel knew, but pretended not to, that it faced no actual existential threat. Israel knew it had decisive military superiority, and American intelligence knew it (read the CIA’s comments) and accurately predicted Israel would be the aggressor. And it was. Israel was the aggressor. By choice. I think that in retrospect a dispassionate examination of the historical record strongly suggests that the notion that the Arab countries were actually poised to attack first and that Israel’s very existence was at stake was a carefully crafted and quite successful propaganda effort. That effort certainly succeeded in convincing the diaspora at the time and won over the diaspora and much of the rest of the world to the notion that Israel was facing destruction and had to attack preemptively, and this gained it decisive sympathy. It was a marvelous propaganda effort, turning reality on its head to Israel’s decisive advantage in world opinion. It is a foundational myth that has persisted to this day. And neither Hammond nor I nor anyone else say Israel should not have mobilized its army at the time. Who said that? But your economic collapse argument is undermined by the fact that the amount of mobilization needed for defense was far less than that needed for offense. I shall quote General Peled in regards to this.
            It is enough to quote the Israelis in the government and the military at this time, I think, which I shall do in a following comment.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You have not adressed a single argument of mine Benny.

            I adressed every argument of yours.

            Checkmate!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I missed this bit of Benny’s response which he craftily tucked right at the end of his long repetition of his first post…

            BEN:”But your economic collapse argument is undermined by the fact that the amount of mobilization needed for defense was far less than that needed for offense”

            Let’s see…

            The Arabs deployed 240,000 troops around three fronts (Egypt, Syria and Jordan). Israel deployed 100,000 troops. Then there was the illegal blockade of an international waterway by Egypt, putting further strain on Israel’s economy. And the raids by the Fedayeen, blowing up infrastructure and murdering Israelis…

            … that was no strain on Israel’s economy according our one eyed pundit, Benny.

            …so tell me, Benny-leh what would America’s response be if say China would do that to America?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Part 1 of 5
            Let’s try to look at this dispassionately. Most of your argument is actually dispatched by Jeremy Hammond. He shows that neither Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any real intention of attacking Israel; that they knew that did not have the forces to do it; and that Israel’s leaders, and the Johnson administration, knew that. Israel knew, but pretended not to, that it faced no actual existential threat. Israel knew it had decisive military superiority, and American intelligence knew it (read the CIA’s comments) and accurately predicted Israel would be the aggressor. And it was. Israel was the aggressor. By choice. I think that in retrospect a dispassionate examination of the historical record strongly suggests that the notion that the Arab countries were actually poised to attack first and that Israel’s very existence was at stake was a carefully crafted and quite successful propaganda effort.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BENNY’s AUTHOR:”It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one.”

            Let’s see let me lay this usual simplistic analysis into true perspective….

            The word preemptive in this context means that Israel needed to attack Egypt in order to stave off danger to itself. And I will prove that indeed that is what Israel faced. It faced danger to it’s very existence irrespective of whether Egypt intended to attack it or not. I will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt Benny.

            Let’s see if you can present a logical counter argument instead of your usual ducking, weaving, asserting and ignoring my arguments, eh Benny-leh….?

            BENNY’s AUTHOR:”Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.”

            So let’s choose to believe this simplistic assertion that Egypt did not intend to attack. But the obvious question to ask in response is for how long? I will leave that question hanging for now, but I will come back to it. Now for my proof that Israel’s very survival was at stake…

            1. In 1967, in the weeks leading up to the war, Egypt kicked out the UN peace keepers from Sinai.

            2. Egypt mobilized it’s troops and so did Syria and Jordan and lined them up along Israel’s border on three fronts.

            3. A loud chorus of threats then occurred from various Arab leaders. They rattled the proverbial can and promised that in the forthcoming battle, they intend to wipe Israel off the map.

            4. To accentuate that threat, blockaded the straits of Tiran which affected Israel’s ability to supply itself with oil from Iran which in those days was ruled by the Shah and was friendly to Israel.

            5. In addition, Egypt sent irregular forces (Fedayeen) from across the border into Israel to carry out acts of sabotage and to murder and maim Israeli civilians (sounds familiar?).

            The least that Israel had to do was to mobilize it’s citizen army and face off the Arab armies. Yes or no, Benny-leh?

            If you say no, then tell me. What would stop the Arab armies marching into Israel’s major cities and take over without even a shot being fired?

            (Watch Benny duck the above question)!!!!!

            …but let me go on. Obviously Israel had to mobilize it’s citizen army. And what then? A face off…

            Even if the author of Benny’s quoted article is right that Egypt did not plan an immediate attack, even then, how long could the face off go on….?!

            …I’ll tell ya, Benny, not all that long. Israel’s economy ground to a halt since the workforce was also the army which had to be mobilized. In fact, Nasser knew that and he actually taunted Israel and dared it to attack. Which eventually had to happen. Had it not happened, Israel’s economy would have collapsed and the three Arab armies would have just picked Israel off.

            As for Jordan just joining the fight to help it’s ally, Egypt. Yea? Thanks, they were still the first to attack Israel because Israel’s preemptive attack was only against Egypt and Syria, NOT against Jordan. Jordan could have just stayed out of the fight (Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out) but they did not listen.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            2 of 5
            That effort certainly succeeded in convincing the diaspora at the time and won over the diaspora and much of the rest of the world to the notion that Israel was facing destruction and had to attack preemptively, and this gained it decisive sympathy. It was a marvelous propaganda effort, turning reality on its head to Israel’s decisive advantage in world opinion. It is a foundational myth that has persisted to this day. And neither Hammond nor I nor anyone else say Israel should not have mobilized its army at the time. Who said that? But your economic collapse argument is undermined by the fact that the amount of mobilization needed for defense was far less than that needed for offense. I shall quote General Peled in regards to this. It is enough to quote the Israelis in the government and the military during that time, I think, which I shall do in following comments.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            3 of 5
            Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (1968)

            Mordecai Bentov, member of the wartime government: “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.” (1971)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            4 of 5

            General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war. … Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel. … Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war. … All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.” (1972)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            5 of 5

            General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.” (1972)

            General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations during the war: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.” (1972)

            Prime Minister Begin: “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (1982)

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ok my two previous posts already nullified Benny’s claims which he keeps on regurgetating in different forms.

            I notice that he gives quotes of supposed quotes of various Israeli leaders out of context. These originate mainly from one source: Alan Hart a well known and an avowed hater of Israel. Nuff said…

            But seeing he is resorting to such tactics, let me do the same and quote what Nasser, Egypt’s then leader, said before the 1967 war…

            “Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.” – President Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965

            “Brothers, it is our duty to prepare for the final battle in Palestine.” – Nasser, Palestine Day, 1967

            “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel.” – Nasser, May 27, 1967

            “We will not accept any … coexistence with Israel. … Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel …. The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.” – Nasser, May 28, 1967

            “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.” – Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan’s King Hussein.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And again, I repeat my question…

            Yes, Israel had military superiority. That certainly can’t be denied in hindsight but it was outgunned and outnumbered, that also can’t be denied…

            So, how would have any other country reacted in Israel’s place? Remember, it’s enemies lined up their troops on three of Israel’s fronts. They mounted raids into Israel. They blockaded an international shipping way and they openly declared that in the forthcoming battle, Israel would be destroyed (see my previous post)…

            How would any country react to such a situation? How would America react if China would line up it’s troops say in Cuba, Mexico and Canada and behave as the Arabs behaved towards Israel before the onset of the 1967 war?

            I guarantee that America would not ignore such a threat and it would do what Israel did. Hey, Anerica nearly sparked a nuclear war with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis and that threat was a lesser threat than what Israel faced in 1967!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “America nearly sparked a nuclear war with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis and that threat was a lesser threat than what Israel faced in 1967!”

            Patently false. Read what Rabin and Peled said. Read what Bentov said. It is preposterous to claim (and shows how truly warped is your thinking) that Nasser’s two divisions in the Sinai were anything even remotely close to the threat posed by Soviet nuclear warheads sitting in Cuba aimed at American cities. Preposterous. Ludicrous. The equivalent would be Iranian nuclear warheads sitting in Lebanon aimed at Israeli cities.

            General Peled and Mordechai Bentov alone refute you lock stock and barrel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I’ll make a deal with you, Benny-leh.

            First you read the quotes that I gave you about what Nasser said before the 1967 war…

            …then I’d love to read your quotes from Israeli leaders in their original context that they were made. I was looking for links to find those but all I could find is this clone of yours named Alan Hart who seemed to lift those quotes out of context.

            You wouldn’t happen to have a link to those original articles, Benny-leh would yah?

            …again, don’t forget to read Nasser bellicose rants which he made before the 1967 war. Care to explain those comments, Benny? Somehow they don’t corroborate your claims. Odd isn’t it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”The equivalent would be Iranian nuclear warheads sitting in Lebanon aimed at Israeli cities.”

            So tell me then, Benny-leh, what is the difference between getting nuked from Russian soil as opposed to Cuban soil?

            Oh and tell me again, what in your opinion would America’s reaction would be if China would line up troops along three of America’s borders/threshold, start yelling at the top of their voices that the days of the capitalist entity are numbered. Then would institute a blockade on say the Panama canal and mount terrorist raids into US territory, killing civilians and blowing up infrastructure. What do ypu think America would do Benny-leh? Sit around for months and negotiate while all that would be going on?

            You are not going to answer that wuestion are ya, Benny?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You simply don’t get it and long after you get it you’ll pretend not to get it. Israeli leaders’ candid, inside admissions and analyses of their true assessments at the time of the threat and their true motives in attacking Egypt are no match for a recitation of Nasser’s public bluster for internal consumption purposes. The CIA and the Israelis and Nasser knew he did not have the capability to attack. Read the quotes of the Israeli high command above, again. Including Rabin’s: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” Including all of General Peled’s. Including Bentov: “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Still no response from Benny about how America would react if the Chinese would do to America what the Arabs did to Israel in 1967.

            And he accuses ME of not getting it, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            Gustav: The occupation itself is not illegal. But thank you for admitting it is an occupation and therefore by definition the territory does not belong to Israel. The illegal part is building settlements in the occupied territory, business contracts granted in occupied territory, taking natural resources of the occupied territory, moving people around against their will in the occupied territory, trying to dump responsibility while maintaining control (like in Gaza) for the occupied territory by assigning administration of it to a third-party hardly objective WZO.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I admitted that the Palestinian Arab people are subject to occupation. I also admit that privately owned Arab lands are under occupation. I do not admit that crown lands are under occupation.

            Palestine used to be part of the British mandate. Prior to that it was part of the ottoman empire. It was never a sovereign Arab country prior to that.

            In the civil war which the Palestinian Arabs initiated in 1947, they wanted to grab all the lands of the British mandate. So we have just as much right to the crown lands as the Arabs. After all, the population of Palestine consisted of BOTH Jews and Arabs, not just Arabs.

            Good try though Average…

            Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        “I hope they allow me to visit him in jail to spit on him.”

        Eis, you just couldn’t stick to your “rule of law” script; you had to go and show that concern for the protection of those subject to “the law” is actually the furthest real thing from your mind. Nobody revering legal processes and protections turns around and openly hopes the authorities allow her to go and spit upon a detained prisoner.
        By the way not that it matters one whit in regards to the above, but do you want to spit on a restrained Olmert because he took bribes? Or because he made an effort to approach Abu Mazen with an offer for a lasting peace? Or what is it?

        Reply to Comment
        • Merkava

          Go take your meds, you little psychotic creep!

          Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Just as I predicted. Benny now resorts to a petty little post against Ginger.

          He tossed his grenade about “Israel having been the agressor in 1967”, he got thoroughly debunked and he now has nothing worth while to say.

          But watch him repeat the same spin next time as if nothing happened.

          Benny is fixated on the idea that Israel is always wrong and that Arabs never ever do anything wrong. He grabs every bit of superficial analysis by dunces, Jew haters, and paid Arab propagandists that he can lay his hands on to try and back up his point of view. But when challanged by someone who knows about history, Benny is stumped. He is lost for words. All he can do is grind his teeth in helpless fury because his ignorance and bias is exposed.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            So neurotic. I already responded about 1967. It just hasn’t come through yet. (Seems +972 favors your posts. LoL. There goes two years of rants about “censorship”!) On another thread today I advised you about this bad habit of yours of anxiously demanding instant answers.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL he responded but he is being censored.

            His petty posts (Benny’s) come through but his responses don’t.

            Well Benny-leh, if you don’t respond then those non responses don’t come through, LOL.

            As for me hanging out for your responses? Nah. I couldna give a stuff but I like to comment on you being stumped. Any problams with that?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Oh, I don’t think I’m being censored. That’s your way of thinking. For whatever technical reason it didn’t go through. Probably it was too long. I’ll break it into parts. You certainly give the impression of hanging out.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Oy! The blindness! “I hope they allow me to visit him in jail to spit on him” is not petty? And revealing about Eis’s pretenses?

            Reply to Comment
          • Merkava

            Because you are psychotic, BEN, you see Ginger everywhere, read your own fantasies in her comments and post sexual comments to her and other MEN you think are her, including me and others. You see things only you see and believe others are blind to what YOU see. Ginger has called you “a pig” when you were posting simultaneously as Brian, Brian and Muslim Jew and sending sexual and nazzzy comments to her and told you that you are not worth responding to and doesn’t respond to your vitriolic comments, but that apparently set off the uncontrollable psychopath in you which we witness on this site. Psychiatrists have developed several stalker profiles:

            1. The rejected stalker. This person was rejected in a relationship, and they perceive it as an insult, they feel wounded, and they are seeking vindication.

            2. The resentful stalker. These are self-righteous, self-pitying people who may threaten, but they are the least likely to act on it. Again,

            3. The intimacy-seeking stalker. They believe they are loved or will be loved by the victim. Often they focus on someone of higher social status. This person is mentally ill and delusional.

            4. The incompetent. This person is socially backward.

            5. The predator. This is about sex gratification, control, and violence. The stalker doesn’t necessarily know the victim. The victim may not know she is being stalked. But a predator plans their attack, rehearses it, has lots of sexual fantasies about it.

            Here is BEN’s masterpiece on Ginger, while BEN posed as “Israel” here: http://972mag.com/thousands-march-in-tel-aviv-against-growing-right-wing-incitement/114957/

            Look in the mirror, BEN, you psychotic creep. You are seriously ill and the petty excuses you give (i.e. “Oy! The blindness! “I hope they allow me to visit him in jail to spit on him” is not petty? And revealing about Eis’s pretenses?”) for continuing your behavior is pretty pathetic. Deranged stalkers always have a “good” excuse in their sick minds.

            Seek professional help, you little creep.

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            Nah, it’s because YOU are a psychotic ZIONIST mouth-breather, Ginger LIES, that YOU see this “Ben” character everywhere, and project your own warped ZIONIST delusions onto him, and post sexual comments to him and to other MEN, WOMEN and CHILDREN when you HALLUCINATE they are him. You are a sad pathetic Zionist loser, Ginger LIES, and very, very sick. This “Ben” character called you “a sick puppy” when you were posting simultaneously as “Merkava”, Daniel and Donkey of Judah, and sending him sexually suggestive and lewd comments after he told you that you were not worth responding to and that he didn’t want to respond to your vitriolic comments, but that was apparently enough to set off the uncontrollable ZIONIST psychopath in you that we are witnessing on this site.

            Look in the mirror, Ginger LIES, you little Zionist psychopath. Deranged anti-Semitic ZIONIST filth like you would gladly praise Hitler if it served your cancerous ideology.

            Go play in traffic, you deranged sadistic Zionist psychopath.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            @Gustav — I repeat: Nobody revering legal processes and protections turns around and openly hopes the authorities allow her to go and spit upon a detained prisoner.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            What, by the way, makes you assume I responded to Eis after I responded to you or that there is some weird tactical connection? You are a curious fellow. My response to someone else means I’m not going to respond to you or that I responded to her to avoid you? So odd.

            Reply to Comment
          • Daniel

            Merkava, it is pointless trying to change the behavior of an apparent psychopath online. He is already playing dumb and confused. Ben’s case is clinical and only a trained shrink can change his behavior. Ben also confused me with Ginger and posted sexual comments to me calling me “sweet pea”, etc. and asking if ‘I want to meet with him’ !!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Correction, Daniel…

            Not even a clinical psychologist can change Benny’s obsessive compulsive behavior. I doubt that Benny himself can change it even if he wants to, the poor soul.

            Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        Ginger: Thank you for clearly laying out this appeals process, it is helpful for me to understand the situation.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Terry jones

      Another moron with another sob story.

      Reply to Comment
    3. nurit peled elhanan

      I met Martin at the special session on Gaza at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine and saw his documentary about the loss of livelihood and the destruction of factories, especuially the famous candy factory in Gaza. His interviews were sensitive and deep, he showed no atrocities, no dead bodies but he managed to convey a message of what may be called Sociocide.Everyone was deeply impressed by his testimony and he himself was very moved by the situation. So of course the J.N are afraid of him.

      Reply to Comment
      • Merkava

        Another moron with another sob story. See Hannibal’s comment above and educate your poor self.

        Reply to Comment
        • Israel

          “Hannibal”

          HANNIBAL. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          Nah, Ginger LIES, your cannibal is just another one of the many aliases that you use on this site, to spew vile anti-Semitic blood-libels about Palestinians, whitewash the war crimes that your “jewish state” commits daily “in the name of all Jews”, and to glorify the continual crimes against humanity that your “jewish state” proudly perpetrates in Palestine “in the name of all Jews”.

          See my comment above then go play with your cannibal friend, you deranged sadistic Zionist psychopath…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          Reply to Comment
          • Daniel

            Ben, as I told you before, you need to see a shrink – fast! You have deep mental problems.

            You can take my advice or you can continue posing as “Israel” and disgracing yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Israel

            Ginger LIES, as I told YOU before, you need to HANNIBAL yourself – and fast! You have vvvvery, vvvvery deeep and incurable mental problems and are just tooo damned stoopid for words.

            You can take my advice, Ginger LIES, or you can continue disgracing yourself further by continuing to pose as “Daniel”, even after you inadvertently outed yourself…Ooops!

            Reply to Comment
    4. Average American

      Wow, alot of interesting comments on this one! Gustav and Ben I see you’re at it again but you got off-track of the article. I think I’d like Israel to let me read for myself what this guy wants to write. I will decide for myself if I think it’s bunk or not. THAT’s what free press is. Israel doesn’t have to have free press, it’s their own country, their own laws. I just disagree with them.

      Reply to Comment
      • Pierre T

        Browsing the web I came across this site and this post. I have no particular axe to grind except that of a journalist (myself).

        I also happen to speak French and German and took the trouble of visiting Herr Lejeune’s website(s). Sorry, but what he’s doing is advocacy not journalism. He’s an activist. Nothing inherently wrong with that but calling himself a “journalist” is an insult to my profession.

        I won’t comment on whether Israel’s decision to bar him was justified (that’s their own affair), but let’s just make this clear: what Martin Lejeune does hasn’t qualified as “journalism” since the demise of the Soviet Union.

        Reply to Comment
      • Merkava

        But of course, BEN, whenever Gustav demolishes you in an argument, you melt away and disappears like the little old creepy coward you are and re-appears as “Average American”, “Israel”, “Muslim Jew” to continue running around in circles and hurling anti-Semitic slurs. Coward BEN cant debate Gustav and myself mano-a-mano, but instead chooses to run and hide from his fellow men and uses “Israel”, “Average American”, “Muslim Jew”, to distract and obfuscate.

        And now, little old creepy BEN will respond as “Israel”. Wait for it folks, here he comes …..

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          Merkava: You’re off-track of the article too. I think for myself and I speak for myself.

          Reply to Comment
        • Israel

          Ginger LIES, why do you use multiple aliases, including “Daniel” to talk with yourself? Are you really that schizophrenic?

          Ok, Ginger Lies, now march out “SkyHawk” and show us what a schizophrenic Zionist bottom-feeder you are, and how obsessed with “BEN” you are.

          Entertain us, Ginger LIES!

          Reply to Comment
    5. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter