Wish You Orwell

The High Court of Justice decided to delay the urgent appeal in the case of Khader ‘Adnan to Thursday – and may not reach a decision even then

Khader ‘Adnan is on his 65th day of a hunger strike, and today the High Court of Justice (HCJ) decided today to delay dealing with the urgent appeal in his case to Thursday. Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, which supports the appeal, noted that that would be ‘Adnan’s 69th day of a hunger strike, and there is no guarantee that the justices will bother to make their decision then. It’s a Thursday, you know, and the weekend is so close, and this is just a Palestinian in administrative detention, and he must be held for a reason. Irrecoverable dying begins on the 70th day of a hunger strike. That would be Friday.

Now, the HCJ knows, when it wants to, how to hold swift hearings. Before the evacuation of the settler outpost Amona, it held a marathon debate till morning before making its final decision. But that was an illegal outpost, built on private Palestinian land; the debate was on something important, such as the theft rights of settlers. Not something petty like the most essential rights of a non-Jew.

People tell me: ‘Adnan can stop his hunger strike whenever he wants. This is very true. He can also solve most of his other problems and simply sign whatever his interrogators want him to sign. He just has to lie to himself. Whoever makes that claim has no clue as to what human dignity is, the basic right to not have a jackboot at your throat; or, perhaps, he thinks Palestinians denuded of human dignity.

‘Adnan’s detention serves no practical purpose. He is not interrogated as he lies chained in a hospital. Even were the security apparatus to discharge him now, he will not be a danger to anyone anytime soon. He has already suffered severe damage. There is no reason to keep him detained, but one: his release will embarrass the apparatus. It will testify that there was no cogent reason to hold him in the first place. It will put the entire system of administrative detention in question.

So what we basically see is a pissing contest between a dark apparatus, the strongest in Israel and quite likely in the entire Middle East, and a sick, dying man, under guard, chained to his bed, with nothing but his faith to drive him on. The HCJ was supposed to be a bulwark of this man, stand between him and the apparatus, and defend him. That, after all, is the legend they keep telling us about the HCJ: that it is comprised of wise, all-knowing judges, standing undaunted in defense of human rights against the government. The thin line of black robes.

The court made excellent use of this legend, and used it in the political struggles of the 1990s and 2000s. Some Israelis actually received aid from him. But it never defended the Palestinian. Every Palestinian had the right to appeal to the HCJ against the demolition of his house; the court never prevented any. Not a single one. The court approved one administrative detention after another, even though this basically took us to pre-Magna Carta law. Even when the apparatus decided to exile 400 people suspected of being Hamas members to Lebanon, the HCJ approved the decision – admittedly, it held a swift hearing on the urgent appeal of the deportees.

The justices know precisely where they sit. If they hear the petition, they will also have to make a ruling. If they reject the petition, ‘Adnan’s blood will be on their hands, which can be quite uncomfortable the next time they visit Europe. If they accept it, on the other hand, they will face the wrath of the Israeli mob, which does not understand what’s all the noise about some Ay-rab. So they postpone the hearing. As the old joke went, perhaps the dog will die; perhaps the baron (the apparatus) will. Perhaps someone else will deal with this hot potato for them.

And that is evil cowardice. And that, too, should be borne in mind when we shall have our own judges’ trials.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

The demand that the NYT chief of office in Jerusalem be “unbiased” towards the Netanyahu government is the height of chutzpah

Jeffrey Goldberg, the former IDF prison guard and self-appointed gatekeeper to all things Jewish and Zionist, is not happy with the new NYT Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren. He has two problems with her.

The first, and most important, is that Rudoren had the temerity to read Peter Beinart’s new critical book about Israel and, lo and behold, support it. Goldberg whines that she is showing “bias” against Likud.

Which, I think, is perfectly fine. After all, the Likud prime minister recently said that his main enemies are the NYT and Ha’aretz. He has refused to write an oped for the NYT, snarkily saying he didn’t want to “Bibiwash” it. Once a public official takes a public stand as an declared enemy of a newspaper, I don’t think the paper should continue to treat him as any other public officials. Journalists are not, and should not be, angels. To blame the NYT bureau chief of “bias” against Likud after this is utter chutzpah and evidence of the writer being a propagandist.

Goldberg also calumnies Ali Abunimah, claiming that he is an “advocate of Israel’s destruction” and comparing him to a “settler rabbi,” and deplores Rudoren’s “chummy” relations with him. You don’t have to like Abunimah – I’m not a fan, myself – to bristle at this. Unlike settlers, rabbis or not, Abunimah is not committing war crimes by his very existence and he does not rely on the subjugation of another people for it. Furthermore, Abunimah does not “advocate Israel’s destruction”: he merely demands Israel stop being Zionist. Given that in this world, practical Zionism is racist and cannot be otherwise, this is a worthy demand which has nothing to do with the “destruction of Israel,” merely its transformation. (Yes, I can imagine an ideal world in which Zionism is not necessarily racist; if you do visit that world, please give my regards to the pink unicorn.)

And finally, Goldberg graciously grnats Rudoren his permission to not be a Zionist. One would think that, as the Jersualem bureau also deals with Palestine and Palestinians, this should be an actual requirement (otherwise, the bureau chief should prima facie be considerd biased), but I guess that after an NYT chief whose son served in the IDF, we should be grateful for small mercies.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

As Im Tirzu takes its opponents to court, a troubling picture of the inspiration of its leader emerges

Yesterday, the defense in the trial of Im Tirzu vs. the Facebook group “Im Tirzu – a fascist movement” presented its depositions. The plaintiff is the infamous right-wing group, the defendants are a group of leftist activists, the issue is libel. It began in 2010 when Ronen Shoval, chairman of Im Tirzu, sent the following email to Roy Yelin, who opened the group:

Hello Roy,

From perusal of the Facebook page “Im Tirzu – a Fascist movement” it seems you created it.

Im Tirzu is not a fascist movement, and will not suffer being defamed. I wish to inform you that if you won’t delete this Facebook group within 72 hours, we intend to contact a law firm on the folliwing Sunday and sue you personally for defamation and libel.

Just to make this clear: turning the “Im Tirzu – a fascist movement” Facebook page over to another person will not diminish your personal responsibility.

I ask you to consider the issue carefully, before we are forced to turn to legal measures.

Sincerely,

Ronen Shoval

Yalin did not fold, and the trial commenced (Hebrew). Im Tirzu demands 2.6 million NIS (about 702,000 USD) from the eight administrators of the group (full disclosure: I know some of them personally) for defaming it.

Im Tirzu always used goon tactics. For a long time, there was no page about Im Tirzu in the Hebrew Wikipedia, because Shoval threatened to sue if it was described as a right-wing movement. It shows classical hypocrisy: Im Tirzu whines about being silenced while silencing others. Its lawyer claimed the Facebook group was “an attempt to publicly assassinate Im Tirzu.” I guess a lawsuit for 2.6 million is just a nicety.

Im Tirzu is using foreign funds, particularly from the American right-wing – much of its money came from John Hagee, so I guess we can term it “rabid right wing” – and is copying the oh-so-American system of SLAPP lawsuits and bringing it to Israel.

In order for the SLAPP tactic – i.e., a suit which is intended not to win at court but to make the opponent cower and remove an annoying truth he published – to work, you need a scared opponent and a malfunctioning legal system. The Israeli one fits the bill: trials last for years, and and even if you do win, as a rule the courts award you just a fraction of your expenses. So, if are forced to go to court, you already lost, even if you win. How convenient for NGOs (or, in Im Tirzu’s case, GONGOs) who are backed by shadowy donors from abroad; how unfortunate for political activists who try to speak truth to power.

Is Im Tirzu a fascist movement? I think so. So does the world-renowned expert on fascism (and victim of Jewish terrorism) Prof. Ze’ev Sternhall (Hebrew). Comparing Im Tirzu to the 14 points of fascism is instructive; but there’s more.

Among the depositions by the defense is one by Tomer Persico, who is a researcher of religions and writer of one of the most important blogs on the issue in Israel (and, full disclosure, is a friend). Persico himself was once the victim of a SLAPP lawsuit after describing the court of a new age guru who dubbed himself “the Buddha from Orion” (I kid you not), which made him a cause celebre in the Israeli blogosphere.

In his deposition, Persico described a conversation with Shoval, which took place a few months ago as they were interviewed by Makor Rishon. In the recorded conversation, Persico told Shoval he was surprised to see clear romantic German influences on Shoval’s book, and was surprised when the latter freely admitted it. Shoval said that “in my thesis, I dealt a lot with Ficthe, Schelling, Herder and George Sorel.” The latter is considered to be one of the founders of Italian fascism, and was fascinated by political violence: he praised Action Francaise, the nationalist movement which led to the founding of French fascism, he praised Mussolini – and Lenin, too. He was also an anti-Semite who spread the blood libel (though he was on the side of the angels in the Dreyfus Affair). This is, to say the least, a rather strange inspiration for the leader of a so-called neo-Zionist revival movement. Persico said he was “stunned.”

Shoval, says Persico, claimed Persico was unkind in his review of his book, since when was using the ideas of Herder and Fichte about the organic nature of the volk, he was speaking metaphorically. Shoval said he didn’t put it quite that way in his book, since the purpose of the book “is to express simplistically ideas – I say, simplistically – ideas which are very deep… to make it clear to the multitude… the meaning of the word ‘Zionism’ today.” Persico claimed that such simplicity is dangerous and that it is typical of Im Tirzu’s activity; Shoval replied that “this is an issue of marketing strategies.”

So, in the name of marketing strategies, Shoval is injecting volkist concepts into the Israeli mindset, concepts which originally – and he claims to know the original very well – have caused untold suffering both to the people they were injected into, to the minorities living among them, and to nearby nations. Ronen Shoval is exposed as a political charlatan, who knows precisely what poisoned wells he is using, knows precisely what his goals are, but is unwilling to be stamped with the proper title – volkist fascism – because of “marketing strategies.” He and his movement do all that by getting large sums of money from abroad, which they try to conceal to the extent of the law, and when someone points out their true nature, that is calls them a fascist movement, they sue him for 2.6 millions.

The intimidation works: Persico, who already went through the nightmare of a SLAPP suit (which ended very quickly, and in his victory) decided not to publish the conversation he had with Shoval just not to risk another lawsuit. Now this conversation is a part of a legal deposition, and hence protected.

So if you believe you should support a small group of young activists fighting for freedom of expression in Israel and for the ability to speak the truth even in the face of fascist groups with plenty of money from unknown sources, and if you think people are entitled to legal representation even if their father, unlike Shoval’s, is not a multi-millionaire, go here and donate. I already did.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

Several actions by the current government are intended to deny the opposition its essential freedom of action

One of the basic principles of a democratic regime is that it allows all participants to participate in it equally. The basic assumption is that the faction currently in power will be removed from it someday, and that the opponents of the government are allowed the same rights in spreading their ideas. Another basic assumption is that a change of government is a healthy thing; that a regime which makes replacing it difficult is already on the way to dictatorship or at the very least an authoritarian regime. In a democratic regime, or at any rate in a society imbued with a democratic ethos, the government does not change the rules in mid-game, particularly not in its favor.

This is how we should view the series of bills persecuting the left proposed by the Netanyahu coalition in the last two years. Let’s deal with one of the latest, one which Haaretz notes (Hebrew) will be debated tomorrow by the ministerial legislative committee, which under this government is the fast track for “private” bills (i.e., those not proposed by the government or a party but by MKs without the support of either).

The bill was tabled by Ze’ev Elkin – one of the leaders of the witch hunts – and Zion Finian, both Likud backbenchers. Its name is misleading: “A bill for the amending of the IRS order (promoting settlement.” What it does (you can read it in a Hebrew document form here) is grant up to 35% tax deduction for contributions to the settlements. Its language is opaque: “In the IRS order, in section 9(2), paragraph (b), in the definition of ‘public goal’, ‘promotion of settlements’ will follow ‘education’.”

In plain English, it means that Israel will from now on recognize the promotion of construction in the settlements as a public goal which it exempts from tax. Elkin and Finian argue for their bill thusly: “Among the various public goals, the goals of empowering Zionism and the promotion of Zionist settlements are conspicuous in their absence. In these days, of constant erosion of values in general and the values of Zionism and settlements in particular, those values should be returned to their former glory and put back in their proper place. One of the ways to do so is in giving public institutions acting to realize these goals a tax deduction and recognizing such contributions for tax purposes.”

“Constant erosion of values in general and the values of Zionism and settlements in particular”? Just in which parallel universe does Elkin live? Maybe the same one inhabited by Danny Danon, who several days ago was whining (Hebrew) about the nefarious activities of “leftist elements within the government.” But that is the nature of volkist hysteria: it’s always on the verge of annihilation, always – particularly when it actually rules – convinced it is in “constant erosion.”

What Elkin and Finian’s bill is trying to do is to sneak under the radar a critical change in Israel’s attitude to the settlements: Now you can receive a tax deduction for building outside Israel. This, in short, is another way of transferring funds from Israel to the occupied territories. The bill is another step in the creeping annexation of the West Bank.

Elkin, who was already exposed as a traitor who informed radical settlers on the movements of IDF forces, is also one of the main proponents of the bills which will deny Israeli left organizations their tax benefits. Here is the world according to Elkin: contributions to human rights organizations, which are clearly affiliated with the left (well, given that the Israeli right is Jehovist and inherently racist, that’s not much of a surprise) will not be tax deductible – and hence, they’ll have a harder time spreading their ideas. On the other hand, organizations acting outside the state of Israel and who actively try to annex Israel to Judea, will. All in the name of “erosion of the values of Zionism and settlement.”

A government is not supposed to make war on its civilians, is not supposed to use the power of the state in order to prevent itself from being replaced. And that’s precisely what Elkin and co. are doing. Here we come to another interesting issue, pointed out to me by Alon Entin, who runs the human rights tool in the Open Knesset website (Hebrew): The law “Obliging full disclosure by organizations supported by a foreign entity”, which the Knesset enacted a year ago, exempts (see article 7 of the law, Hebrew) “national institutes” from this obligation. We are talking about the Jewish Agency, the JNF, and “corporations under their control.”

The Jewish Agency has been, for quite some time, a money funnel for right-wing organizations. Twice, it transferred large amounts of money to Im Tirzu – which disseminates the messages of the Prime Minister’s office and which in all likelihood received a large donations from a former senior official in Netanyahu’s office. And as Uri Blau exposed yesterday in Ha’aretz (Hebrew), NGO Monitor – a right-wing attack dog directed at human rights NGOs, which recently put +972 on its sights – has also received a large donation (570,000 NIS, some 154,000 USD) through the Jewish Agency. The latter refused to disclose the source of the donation.

So we may – actually, should – suspect that article 7 in the “full disclosure” law, which was not a part of the bill’s original version, was put there so the government could continue to funnel funds to its GONGOs, i.e. organizations which pretend to be NGOs but in reality receive government support, directly or indirectly, in order to further the government’s goals.

This is the place to note that while Netanyahu is leading his hounds in baying against “foreign funding” for leftist organizations, Netanyahu’s primaries contributions in January 2012 amounted to 787,329 NIS. Tally Schneider exposed (Hebrew) the fact that all of this money, apart from 357 NIS, came from foreign donations. That’s how it is on the right: In order to divert attention from the fact that the prime minister is financed by a foreign oligarch like Sheldon Edelson, who not only contributes directly to him but gives him a huge gift in the form of his own paper, Yisrael Hayom, they make a huge noise about the (much smaller) donations received by the left – and change the rules of the game while they’re at it.

At the same time, Netanyahu’s office is compensating Yisrael Hayom’s ‘journalists’ directly: It was caught paying Dror Eydar for “writing speeches and lectures.” This is the second time this week the Prime Minister’s office was caught paying an Israeli journalist.

What we see here is an offensive by a multi-headed hydra against Israeli democracy. One head snuffs out the contributions to organizations opposed to the government; Another makes the government’s main goal – promoting the creeping annexation of the West Bank – tax deductible; A third sends large sums of money to so-called NGOs who, lo and behold, somehow always have a connection to a senior Netanyahu supporter; A fourth head denies the option of criticizing these money transfers by exempting the semi-governmental organizations who transfer them from full disclosure; A fifth is people who are supposed to be independent journalists, who work for the Prime Minister’s office without bothering to supply their readers with full disclosure.

The goal of this settler-capital complex is to preserve Netanyahu in office by waging an unceasing psychological warfare against the Israeli public. When public funds are used to delude the public, when the sins of the dear leader himself (the fact that he is funded by foreigners hostile to Israeli democracy) are projected as the sins of the opposition whose hands the prime minister tries to bind, as he controls more and more of the media – When all that happens, we are no longer in a democracy, but hurtling towards Putinism.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

Latest decision by the PM’s office shows the hypocrisy of the right when it comes to objectionable statements

The Prime Minister’s Office recently reported (Hebrew) that it receives editing and translating services from Uri Elitzur, who will serve as a speech writer for the PM. Elitzur is a settler pundit, who in 1998, during Netanyahu’s first term, served as his bureau chief. He is now the editor of the weekly supplement of Makor Rishon, a right-wing leaning newspaper. There’s something noble and very rare in Israeli political life for a person to accept a lower position in an office he once led; Elizur’s sense of duty overcame his ego, which is to be commended. In a phone conversation, Elizur tried to downplay this, and said he was merely a friend of Netanyahu who sometimes provided him with aid. And yet.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with Elitzur being hired by the PM’s office. In 2004, as the Disengagement plan gathered steam, Elitzur called settlers to defend themselves with force (Hebrew) from soldiers coming to evict them, as long this does not include firearms. The Government’s Counsel, Menny Mazuz, decided not to open an investigation into these comments (Hebrew). The prosecution said that there was “suspicion of a felony”, but the state’s prosecutor, Shay Nitzan decided (Hebrew), “due to the restrained policy of the prosecution in such matters,” not to investigate. Later that year, Elitzur signed a petition (Hebrew) calling the IDF soldiers to disobey their orders to carry out the Disengagement.

Needless to say, whenever a leftist who is suspected of some questionable comments – Yishayahu Leibovich and Ze’ev Sternhall come to mind – is offered a natioal prize or an office, the right wing’s incitement machine goes into high gear, and demands it will be rescinded. In Leibovich’s case, who famously said Israel is becoming a “Judeo-Nazi” state in the 1980s, they managed to deprive him of his Israel Prize. This machine is employed against left-wing NGOs as well: When one of their employees is caught in, God forbid, saying soldiers should refuse to serve in the occupied territories, or in thinking Israel is an aparheid state, or – most serious of heresies – that there is such a thing as legitimate Palestinian resistance to the occupation, the Im Tirzu brigade is on the march. What would have happened to a left-wing NGO or party, who’d have dared to hire a person who called upon Palestinians to harm IDF soldiers? It’s reasonable to assume MK Danny Danon and Im Tirzu leader Ronen Shuval would have organized stormy protests against it, and would demand that it be dissolved.

But when it is a right-winger who called soldiers to refuse orders, and said they should be harmed in fulfilling their duties, the Prime Minister invites him to write his speeches. So it goes.

(Full disclosure: Unlike Uri Elitzur, Shay Nitzan has decided to investigate the undersigned)

(Yossi Gurvitz)

Israel’s most famous torturer threatens to expose the dirty secrets of the Israeli security system, if he does not receive remuneration

Yediot Ahronot’s “Sheva Yamim”, a weekend supplement, published a long interview yesterday with “Captain George,” the nom de guerre of a disgraced army interrogator, who has become Israel’s most infamous torturer. George, who sues the government for kicking out of the army, says clearly that his goal is blackmailing the government.

“I kept my mouth shut and said nothing about this case [the interrogation and torture of Amal’s Mustafa Dirani – YZG], as well as many other cases in which they used the methods of coverup, obfuscation and lies,” says George to Yediot’s Ronen Bergman, “because I was waiting for someone to come up and say “stop, hold on, we can’t go on like this.’ If they’d come to me a few years back and told me ‘you’ve paid a heavy price, what do you want in order to close this affair quietly? What sort of compensation do you need in order to stay backstage?’ As far as I am concerned, even if they’d given me a job abroad, say in Alaska, and took care of me and my family, everything would be fine and I would shut up forever and this meeting with you would never have taken place. But none of this happened and I think we’ve been too good children.”

In short, like many before him who carried out the security apparatus’ dirty jobs and were exposed, George thinks he was sold, thrown to the dogs, and this despite doing just what everyone else was doing or what they were ordered to do. Unlike others before him, who said they merely wanted to clear their name, George has a price tag: A job in Alaska. As he didn’t get it, he is going to break the apparatus’ omerta oath and testify in court. “If this goes to court, what I told you today is just the teaser,” he threatens, “Trust me – no one really wants me to climb the stand. If I have to stand there and speak of Dirani, you’ll find out I have plenty more to say about how the apparatus acts when it needs to hide all sorts of things […] and everyone is a liar, which is why the country is where it is today, no deterrence, nothing. And in the end? I’m the apparatus’ scapegoat.”

It is a common saying that torturers – and George, by his own admission, is a torturer – are the most cowardly of people. Now we also find out they are the most corrupt. George knows of crimes, but he has no problem with them. He only threatens to expose them when he is in harm’s way. He is behaving like a mafia capo, asked to pay the price: He tries to intimidate his bosses, saying if they won’t take care of him, there’s a lot he can say. Luckily for him, the Israeli security apparatus is still a few steps above the Cosa Nostra, or George would meet his end in a mysterious accident.

George whines that he is accused of sexual crimes. Now, there’s very little doubt that had George resorted to electrocuting Dirani, or use the water torture known by the euphemism of waterboarding, the case would be much less prominent. But George was accused by Dirani of raping him with a nightstick; And George admits – he has little choice, there is a witness – that he ordered a male IDF soldier to undress and approach Dirani in a threatening manner, and then told Dirani the soldier was about to rape him. He even reprimanded the soldier, who was smiling in embarrassment: “Behave correctly, this is serious business.”

This complaint againt George was the second. The first came from Iraqi defectors a few years earlier: They, too, charged that George threatened them with rape. The IDF managed to cover up that case, which may have emboldened George in the Dirani case. He himself claims that the threat of rape is a standard procedure in the IDF’s prisoners interrogation unit (Unit 504) where he was serving.

There are several good reasons to believe him: A few weeks back Uvda, a Channel 2 investigative journalism program, showed a clip in which George’s commander was threatening Dirani with rape; Many Palestinian detainees reported a similar threat; And in at least one case – that of the murdered IDF soldier, Amnon Pomrantz, in 1990 – the reporter Gabi Nitzan wrote that the ISA (Shin Beth) took several children as hostages, in order to convince their brothers, who were suspected of setting the unconscious Pomrantz on fire, to turn themselves in (I had the misfortune of looking after one of these children for a short while). The ISA agents told the children’s families that if the suspects won’t turn themselves in, the children would be sent to a detainee camp, where they would be raped.

Did George rape Dirani with a nightstick? He vehemently denies this. Dirani’s anus suffered injuries which may be the result of such a rape; George claims the are the result of constipation. According to his version, Dirani was suffering from constipation and so his interrogators forced him to swallow a laxative, and then forced him to wear a diaper. Dirani claimed that he was forced to wear the diapers even when they were full of excrement. This method of humiliating a prisoner by forcing him to wallow in his feces is known from various other torturous regimes – it was used, among others, by the Americans in Abu Ghraib. George’s explanation – constipation – sounds somewhat dubious.

Aside from the rape claim, George basically confirms every allegation by Dirani, adding to them the fact the interrogators used the most effective of tortures, the sleep-denial (known to the inquisition as tormentum insomniae). As an aside, Bergman notes that when Dirani was kidnapped from Lebanon in 1994, while still on Lebanese ground, one of the gunmen who kidnapped him pressed a pistol to the head of Dirani’s son and threatened to shoot him if Dirani didn’t tell him immediately where the missing navigator, Ron Arad, was held. The threat was not consummated.

What did the IDF brass know of all this? In a rather convenient manner, the tapes of Dirani’s interrogation have mysteriously disappeared. George, who claims everything he did was authorized, claims that General Amos Gilad – senior intelligence officer, now retired from active service and serving as the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories – was watching the interrogations in real time, and if anything was out of the ordinary, he should have said something. The Security Ministry denies that Gilad was involved in whatever happened there. Without the tapes, we’ll never know.

George further claims that many detainees died during interrogations – particularly ISA interrogations – and this was covered up. This claim ought to be taken seriously. It may well be that when George is breaking the conspiracy of silence, he is providing Israel with vastly more useful service than he did during his long career in the IDF’s torture unit. The torture of Dirani – George was not his only torturer – did not work, neither did the threat to shoot his son before his very eyes: Dirani did not provide any useful information on Arad. George, naturally, claims otherwise: He has to watch himself in the mirror in the morning, after all, and torturing someone for no benefit may be too much even for a scumbag of his proportions. The apparatus, however, rejected the information the torture yielded as untrustworthy.

The Dirani-George case, had it been treated properly, may have become the 300 Line affair of the Unit 504. This did not happen, simply because the public does not wish to know. In 2012 Israel (as in 1994 Israel, as in 1984 Israel) the idea that every person – every Dirani, every George – is a human being, which must not be deprived by reducing him to quivering piece of meat, lying in its own excrement, is still a radical one.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

Khader ‘Adnan is on his 48^th day of a hunger strike, protesting his administrative detention. He is chained to a bed in a Bnei Brak hospital, and it’s unknown whether his family will be permitted to visit him

Khader ‘Adnan, aged 34 of ‘Araba near Jenin, is on his 48^th day of a hunger strike, and is held chained to a bed in M’ayanot HaYeshua’ hospital in Bnei Brak. So reports Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I). ‘Adnan is protesting his administrative detention.

‘Adnan was detained on December 17^th 2011, and went on a hunger strike the following day; He refuses to consume anything but water. Despite his deteriorating situation – PHR-I says a person is in severe danger after the 45^th day of a hunger strike – a military judge declined yesterday to review ‘Adnan’s detention order and postponed the hearing for the second time. ‘Adnan showed to the hearing in a wheelchair.

PHR-I denounced the fact that M’ayanot HaYeshua’ allows ‘Adnan to be hospitalized in chains, noting that in doing so the hospital is in violation of medical ethics, as well as the instructions of the Israeli Health Ministry and the Israeli Physicians organizations. PHR-I asked that ‘Adnan’s chains be removed, and its president, Dr. Ruhama Marton, said that “the chaining of a prisoner to bed is intended solely for the purpose of humiliating him and cause him physical and mental hardship. The security argument is invalid in this case… The chaining of a patient to bed is contrary to international law. Administrative detainee Khader ‘Adnan is trying to defend his rights and his human dignity in the only way left to him, which is a hunger strike.”

In a conversation with Anat Litwin, the PHR-I official dealing with detainees and prisoners, she noted that the organization has also asked for permission for ‘Adnan’s family to visit him; Such permission is required as the family lives in the West Bank and ‘Adnan is held As the IDF did not respond to the request, the NGO made an urgent appeal to the Petah Tikva District Court. No decision has been made yet. Litwin said that “we’re not sure there would be anyone to receive them tomorrow”, and stated that ‘Adnan is in the last stages of a hunger strike. After the 45^th day, a person on a hunger strike’s ability to make decisions is hindered. Dying begins, as a rule, on the 55^th day of a hunger strike. PHR-I did receive permission to have two of its physicians meet ‘Adnan on January 29^th. The doctors spoke to ‘Adnan and informed him of his situations; He decided to continue the strike nevertheless.

Administrative detention in Israel is based on the British emergency laws, which were never repealed, even though the prime minister to-be Menachem Begin, as opposition leader, denounced them as “worse than the Nazi laws.” A person may be detained for up to six months without the government needing to show any evidence against him. Perhaps the most cruel element of administrative detention, which PHR-I considers to be a sort of a mental torture, is the fact that it may be extended time and time again. A murderer sentenced to 25 years at least knows when he will be released; An administrative detainee never does. Often, they are re-arrested on the day the six months expire.

B’Tselem spokesperson Sarit Michaeli noted that the organization noted that the number of administrative detainees is on the rise. In January 2011 Israel held 219 Palestinians in administrative arrest, and the number rose to 307 during December 2011. Michaeli noted that while administrative detention is not per se illegal in international law, its use is supposed to be extremely rare, as such a detainee cannot – for all practical reasons – defend himself, and often does not even know what he is suspected of.

Personally, I always considered the practice of administrative detention to be the worse of the occupation’s crimes. A person is imprisoned without a chance of clearing himself and without any way of knowing when he will be discharged. The system is so grotesque, the Inquisition was a better one: A detainee of the Holy Office had the right to name his enemies, and should the complaint against him come from them, the detainee would be discharged and the false accuser would face the inquisition instead. According to the system of administrative detention, the detainee does not have even that limited chance of clearing himself.

The ISA often claims that the people it holds in such detention are horrible, dangerous people. Maybe so. If that is the case, then take them to court and show your evidence. The conviction rate of the military court system is 99.76% and the judges often allow secret information against the defendant – i.e., information which is presented only to the judge, based on what is claimed to be intelligence. If the level of evidence the ISA holds against ‘Adnan won’t stand even in this crooked system, one can safely assume it has nothing it can show a court.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

The government decided to lift the civil siege of Gaza in 2010. The Ministry of Security didn’t get the memo

On June 9^th 2011 MK Zahava Galon of Meretz sent a question to Ministry of Security, Ehud Barak. Galon wanted to know why Israel prevented women from leaving the Gaza Strip to Tulkarem, where they were supposed to participate in a workshop of the Palestinian Trade Union of Hair Stylists, and what is Israel’s policy towards Gazan women as a whole. She noted that since Israel only allows major traders to leave the Strip, and as woman in Gaza are generally small businesswomen, this is a de facto discrimination against Gazan women. She asked the following questions:

1. Why does the IDF continue to implement policy which discriminates Palestinian women and which is line with Hamas’ policy against women?

2. Why won’t the IDF adopt a uniform policy which will allow Gazan women to go to the West Bank for business or other reasons promoting their status in Palestinian society?

3. How does the current policy serve Israel’s statement it wants to undermine Hamas’ rule of the Strip?

4. How many egress permits were given to women from Gaza versus men from Gaza during the last year, for the purposes of business?

According to the Knesset’s regulations, a minister must respond to a question within 21 days, though he can ask for a delay of 21 more days. Galon’s question was presented in the beginning of June; She told me that the Ministry of Security – it’s not alone, but it’s prominent in this sort of abuse – has a policy of evading parliamentary questions. Galon had particularly harsh words for the way the ministry behaves when it comes to urgent requests by MKs; Often they receive an answer when it is no longer relevant.

In this particular case, Galon did receive an answer. Admittedly, it came on January first,2012, which is about six months since it was presented; Admittedly, it was not signed by the Minister of Security but rather by Matan Vilani, the factotum who holds a position no one held before – he is a “minister for the defense of the homefront” – which was evidently made out of whole cloth to provide him with a sinecure, but an answer was received.

Alas, it contradicts the government’s official policy on Gaza. Vilani, writing in his position as clerk for I-don’t-have-the-patience-for-this affairs for Ehud Barak, wrote that “on 19/9/2007 the Policy Cabinet decided […] that the Gaza Strip is a “hostile territory”, and that it shall be under severe limitations in the civil sphere, including the moving of people from the Strip and into it. In accordance with this decision, grounded in security and political reasons, the entry of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to the territories of the State of Israel is forbidden, unless in urgent humanitarian cases […] Yet we emphasize that the IDF and the GCAIT [government coordinator of activities in the territories, and IDF general – YZG] does not have a policy discriminating women in leaving the Gaza Strip, for business or for other reasons, everything [is being done] in accordance with the current policy.” My emphasis.

However, this comment by Vilani, the minister for receiving a ministerial salary affairs, contradicts a public statement by the Dear Leader himself, Binyamin Netanyahu. In July 2010 – that is, about six weeks after the Mavi Maramara attack – Netanyahu proclaimed that the “civil siege damages the security siege”, and said (Hebrew) that he ordered it lifted. Netanyahu also admitted he considered lifting the civil siege – which he attributes to the 2007 Olmert government decision cited by Vilnai – even before the flotilla events, but, somehow, he never came around to it. In that interview, Netanyahu also complains that the world treats his government’s claim that it lifted the civil siege off Gaza with skepticism. I can’t imagine why. Possibly this skepticism derives from the actual policy of the Ministry of Security and its penny-ante redundant ministers.

Note that Galon’s question was about passage from Gaza to the West Bank; Vilani’s reply was about entry into Israel. This is not the result of the fact Vilnai was never the sharpest herring in the drawer; Entering Israel is essential to movement from the Strip to the Bank, unless the Palestinian is expected to go to Egypt, travel from it to Jordan, and then cross from the to the Bank. This is Israel’s new excuse for its Separation Policy (mediniut ha’bidul, in Hebrew), disconnecting the Strip and the Bank. Anyone entering Israel from Gaza has already passed a stringent search. All the IDF has to do is send every morning one or two buses from the Erez Crossing to the West Bank, along with two or three soldiers to watch over them. It doesn’t. The excuse of “prohibition of entering Israel” is too easy.

In case anyone thought there’s any logic in Israel’s policy of travel permits between the Strip and the Bank, he should have a look at the table usefully assembled here by the Gisha NGO. It’s in Hebrew, so I’ll summarize.

Who pays the price for the Separation Policy? Orphans living in Gaza who lost one parent, whose other parent lives on the Bank; Assuming they have a “close family relation” living in the Strip, they’ll never be united with their parent. The Guardian of Israel shall not sleep, nor shall he wink; He will not allow the horrid danger of an orphan living with his surviving mother to materialize. Who pays the price? Gazans who want to embrace a brother who lost a son. Mind you, the Gazan is only considered dangerous as long as the dead relative is a nephew; Were his brother to die, he would, in the blink of an eye, shed all of his inherent dangerousness and be transformed into a trustworthy Palestinian, and be allowed to travel to the West Bank. Who pays the price? Poets, who – unlike soccer players, for instance – can’t travel from Gaza to the Bank. And this is right and proper: Poets ought to be feared. They are the ones who will weave despair and rage into a tapestry which will, eventually, overcome fear.

Keep that in mind, when next an Israeli official spouts the nonsense that “Israel doesn’t control the Strip.” We accept this abomination daily, out of ignorance and the will not to make waves. We supply the abomination with its guardiams. We are the ones allowing freeloaders like Vilnai to cover it with a mass of harsh, indigestible security-talk, falling on the ground like hail. We keep this policy alive – and, if there is justice in the world, will also pay the price.

Andrew Adler, a Chabadnik newspaper publisher, urged Israel to consider assassinating President Obama. By which he resolved a silly debate

Andrew Adler is the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, and soon he’ll have to spare some time from his busy schedule to answer questions from Secret Service agents. Why? Because, when opining last week on just how Israel should deal with Iran, Adler unleashed a fantasy, and wrote that “[option] three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

Wow. Adler has since issued a non-apology: “I very much regret it, I wish I hadn’t made reference to it at all,” he told the JTA. It is worth noting that Adler is a Chabadnik, i.e. a member of a religious faction which already showed an unhealthy interest in assassinations. Harry Shapiro, a Chabadnik, was convicted of planting a pipe bomb in a synagogue visited by Shimon Peres in Jacksonville back in 1997; And a leading Chabad rabbi in Israel, Dov Wolfa, has flirted (Hebrew) with the supporters of Yigal Amir, Rabin’s assassin. I think it is safe to assume that an Islamic movement with this sort of record would find itself under, shall we say, intense scrutiny by the authorities.

Now, no one would mistake me for a supporter of either the Netanyahu government or Israel’s out of control security establishment, but I am certain that had anyone suggested such a covert operation to Netanyahu, that person would be fired on the spot. And that even had Netanyahu entertained such an idea, the leadership of Mossad would submit their resignation rather than going along with the plan. What Adler wrote was a fantasy, unrelated to Israeli reality.

Which, alas, is true about much what Jewish American think of Israel. However, Adler did prove a point, albeit not one he intended: He showed us there are, in fact, American Jews who are “Israel-firsters”, that is people who put the interests of Israel ahead of their own country. In Adler’s case, to the point of supporting the assassination of his own duly-elected president – which skirts very closely to treason.

The fact that there is a debate on this issue – that such people exist – is silly to the extreme and assumes we are people with no sense of history. To put it in one word: Pollard. In two: AIPAC espionage. But we seem to be having just such a debate.

The usual suspects – the ADL and Jeffrey Goldberg, among others – have been whining for some time about the use of “Israel-firster” by a former Center for American Progress staffer. It is worth bearing in mind that this the second time in a short while neo-cons have tried to paint CAP as an anti-Semitic organization: Last month, former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block tried to stir a secret smear campaign against Matt Duss, a CAP staffer, trying to make him look an anti-Semite. Block’s plan was exposed and backfired; We have to wonder, though, if this is phase two of the same plan. (Full disclosure: Matt Duss is a friend, he did not have anything to do with the “Israel-firster” accusation, and I’ve been feted by CAP on several occasions).

Armenian Holocaust denier Abe Foxman of ADL and his ilk are pulling their usual deceit: They insinuate that when someone describes another as an “Israel firster”, he means to say that all American Jews are. Bullshit. The vast majority of American Jews will feel nothing but horror at Adler’s sick fantasy. Most of them would shudder at the idea of betraying their country like Pollard. A small number of them are, however, “Israel Firsters”: They put Israel’s interest – or, to be more precise, Greater Israel’s interest – ahead of their country’s. You can spot them easily: They generally doth protest too much about the usage of “Israel-Firsters.” But, truth be told, they are insignificant. Me, I’m much more worried about the Israel-firsters of the Republican party and the evangelist movement.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s case is instructive. An American Jew who emigrated to Israel and joined the IDF, only to realize too late what a horrible mistake he was making, he was very vocal on the issue. And then he found himself being asked a nasty question by his arch nemesis, Glenn Greenwald: Did you swear an oath of allegiance to the IDF, Mr. Goldberg?

Incredibly, Goldberg claims he doesn’t remember. That’s very strange: Every IDF soldier is forced to sign just such an oath – but Goldberg claims he doesn’t remember which pieces of paper he signed. As someone who was legally press-ganged into the IDF at the same time Goldberg volunteered to serve, I must say that piece of paper was very prominent.

Well, perhaps Goldberg’s Hebrew wasn’t up to snuff and he didn’t realize what he was signing when he did – but, let me assure you, not signing is not an option, unless you are willing to go to military prison. One of the members of my basic training platoon tried to pull this schtick, and was promptly jailed for two weeks. And rightly, too: You can’t be a member of the armed forces, get a weapon and military training, and not take an oath of loyalty. Orthodox Jews are allowed to say they “declare” loyalty instead of swearing it, but Goldberg didn’t take this option – This would be something he would have remembered.

But, even if Goldberg didn’t notice what he was idly signing (NOT a wise thing to do in the IDF, let me assure you), how could he have missed the celebration at the end of his basic training? They always end with the ritual taking of the oath, with an officer reading the oath and the soldiers, in the presence of their families, shouting back “I swear.” Is Goldberg seriously expecting us to believe he forgot this moment, one which many soldiers note as one of the most memorable of their service? How… conveniet.

Goldberg also seems to claim that, as his military service is over, he is not bound by that oath. That may or may not be the case – is Goldberg still on the rolls of the IDF’s reserves? – but this is not the issue. The point is that while Goldberg declined to serve in the military of his native country, he volunteered to serve in the army of another nation, and took its oath of allegiance. One could hardly think of anything more indicative of being an “Israel-firster” than this. That Goldberg realized that serving in the IDF is a mistake does not clear him – most of the IDF soldiers realized this as well, and unlike him, they were not volunteers.

Which should be born in mind, when next Goldberg calls people who speak the factual truth “anti-Semites.”

The HCJ supports Israel’s right to despoil the West Bank – but won’t allow its residents to marry Israelis

About two weeks ago, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) rejected an appeal by the Yesh Din NGO against the activities of quarries in the West Bank. Such quarrying seems to contradict international law, which forbids the exploitation of the resources of an occupied territory. The HCJ, led by the retiring president Beinish, rejected the appeal, citing some pretty strange reasons. One was that the quarrying is going on for some 40 years, and the court wondered why the appeal was made only recently, in 2009. Which means that yes, there’s exploitation, but it’s been going for quite some time, so that supposedly makes it OK. Another reason was that the quarrying is actually helpful to the Palestinian economy – which ignored the acknowledged fact that 94% of quarried stone and sand are exported directly to Israel.

The court made the absurd claim that according to the Oslo Accords, Israel is allowed to continue quarrying in the territories until a final settlement is reached. It did so while conveniently ignoring the fact that the Accords had an expiration date: May 1999. Almost 13 years have passed since, no final agreement was reached and none is foreseeable. The government of Israel – whose argument was accepted by the court – actually keeps saying that no such agreement will be reached. As for the Accords themselves, a long list of Israeli senior officials, prominent among them Prime Minister Sharon, have publicly said it is dead, it has expired, bought a farm, joined the choir invisible. Furthermore, as Yesh Din note (Hebrew), “international law expressly says that representatives of protected persons (residents of an occupied territory) may not renounce their secured rights (article 7 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).” (Actually, this seems to be Article 8.)

Absurd? Perhaps not. The HCJ further said we must consider the fact that the occupation is “prolonged” and that we cannot freeze the economic activity in the occupied territory until the occupation ends. This seems to be the first time since 1967 that the HCJ retreats slightly from its concept of the “held territory”, which it used so far, and actually updates it to reality. Its decision changes the status of the occupation from a temporary phenomenon – as a result of its temporariness we may, temporarily, suspend the rights of the local residents, since the “final settlement” will be soon upon us, though it may tarry – to the normal state of being.

Which is somewhat revolutionary, as the whole concept of occupation, in international law, is that it should be temporary, and as short as possible. The occupation of Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan, two marauding nations which were the worse danger to humanity aside from the Soviet Union, ended seven years after it began; The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Heights (which was annexed in 1981) will soon celebrate its 45^th holiday. It is hard to see such a prolonged occupation, under which most of the residents of the occupied territories were born, as anything but an annexation; And it’s a good thing that the HCJ begins, belatedly, to recognize reality.

But wait. The HCJ recently made another, related, ruling. Last week, it rejected yet another appeal against the Citizenship Law. This law, voted in during the height of suicide terrorist attacks in 2003 as a temporary measure, forbids the residents of the West Bank from becoming Israeli citizens, even if they marry Israelis. The main victims, naturally, are Israeli Palestinians, who are prevented from marrying Palestinians residing in the West Bank. Or, rather, they can marry them – but such marriages will not grant their spouses Israeli citizenship or even residency. The majority ruled that while Israeli Palestinians do enjoy the right to create a family, which they affirmed to be a basic right, that right does not have to be exercised in Israel. You don’t say. I wonder how Justice Naor, who wrote this phrase, would view a decision saying that while she certainly have a legal right, as a woman, to equality, she is politely asked to exercise it in another country. One imagines she might have some objections.

So, when it comes to the exploitation of the territories, the HCJ permits it because the occupation is now “prolonged”; But when it has to decide whether Israeli Palestinians have the right to pursue happiness, it rejects it because of a temporary measure (prolonged time and time again), and says that, yes, they have rights – but the government may revoke them.

Which is to say that the occupation is eternal, as is the second-class status of Israeli Palestinians. Israel can keep pillaging the West Bank as if it has been annexed, as if it and the West Bank are one undivided territory, it may go on transferring settlers to the West Bank, and at the same time deny the right of Palestinians to move outside their designated zones. Journalist Amira Hess already noted that as far as Israel is concerned, there are four classes of Palestinians, each with its own limited rights: Israeli Palestinians, which are almost citizens but, the HCJ says, should seek their rights in some other country; Palestinians residing in Jerusalem, who enjoy (rapidly vanishing) residency rights; Palestinians residing in the West Bank, who live under military law; and Gazans, the most screwed of the lot, who receive the military occupation package deal + economic siege + drone attacks + particularly careless artillery fire.

So, according to the HCJ, what was once Mandatory Palestine is now inhabited by a religious group who has all the rights and by an ethnic group = who, coincidently, happen to be the indigent people – most of which rights have been denied. So, next time someone asks you why you think Israel is an Apartheid state, tell them the highest court in the land said so.

(Yossi Gurvitz)