Doc's Talk: It’s not only about Yaalon’s Comments, it’s much more that is in the balance

Friday, August 21, 2009

It’s not only about Yaalon’s Comments, it’s much more that is in the balance

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Israel prides itself as being the only true Democracy in the Middle East and actually uses this as a public relations tool. It also is quick to demonstrate how other countries in the region professing to also be democratic are not even close to representative governments. Along side Israel with this mantra is the USA and other western governments. This has justified specific interventions in the region, as preservation of the only Democracy in the ME is paramount to security in the West. Yet there has been a significant violation of a major democratic principle in Israel-freedom of speech.

Of course right at this moment there are those reading this who are challenging my previous statement and they would be correct were I not to follow up with an explanation. There is law, written statements of behavior identified as consistent with the philosophical intent of the body creating it. Then there is the application, implementation and interpretation of these same-set of laws; herein comes the “rub”. In Israel it is a recognized legal principle not a mere “public interest”, but an integral part of the Israeli legal system.

J.S. Mill wrote of the need for protection not only against 'the tyranny of the magistrate' but also against 'the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling'. These can indeed be powerful, especially when backed by social coercion, threats and intimidation, the treatment of the dissident as a pariah so that on all sides he or she faces rejection, derision, contempt.1, 2 What has gone on in Israel for years and seems to have been “ramped up” significantly since the Netanyahu administration has come to power is the tyranny of the Left wing media, political groups, NGO’s, and other influential groups left of center. Discussion and debate are simply words belonging to polite social groups and are not part of the lexicon in Israel today. The ability to control public conversation and public information/data undermines the very principles grounded in freedom of speech.

The current Ya’alon firestorm surrounding his recent comments addresses some critical issues today for the future of Israel. Allow me to identify a few of his comments and share how they were taken out of context and used as examples of poor behavior. Oh yes, he does have “the right to say them” however, this statement is always followed with a BUT … We know in this type of sentence that all the words left of the BUT are dismissed and not accepted by the words that follow the BUT.

He said, ““The media is biased... Unfortunately, there are those, one could call them elites, who influence the Israeli public discourse in a warped, dishonest, manipulative and misleading manner,” he warned. The reporting media lead into his statement with “Yaalon warned that public opinion in Israel has been taken over by a small group of elites.”3 He did not say that this group was small; this is the editor making the supposition. A minor point yes and if words have meaning than one should report and not offer analysis.

He also said, ““We're in a situation where there are centers of power with authority, but no responsibility. This is not democracy... The wealthy form one such center of power, the media is another, as is the Supreme Court.”3 Now what really rankled the Left was the following statement regarding a foreign funded Left group known as “Peace Now”-it is an elite group and a virus.” Here it is, he challenged directly a peace group or what some of us in Israel call a so-called peace group. So what were the responses to General Yaalon voicing his protected freedom of speech?

Peace Now head Yariv Oppenheimer accused Yaalon of making Peace Now “a target” for hate from the nationalist camp. Defense Minister Ehud Barak came to the group's defense, calling Peace Now “an important part of the peace camp.”3 Having stated what is considered politically incorrect comments he was back lashed by members of his own party. Likud politicians gave anonymous interviews accusing Yaalon of “running to the extreme right” in an attempt to garner support. Of course it was not mentioned that they did this to curry political favor with Mr. Netanyahu in order to further their own political careers. No, this was reported to try to demonstrate what a political isolate Mr. Yaalon was becoming. Yes, this is pure politics-understood!

The vitriol immediately appeared in the Left Wing press. Name-calling ensued, one of the tactics used to undermine a person’s opinion that is different from your own.

Time to call spade a spade: Minister Ya'alon simply not a very smart man was the banner line in Sima Kadom’s piece today on YNET.

These were the kind words. This is expected from the Left as they have learned several tactics to apply to those daring to oppose them. Some, but by no means all, of these tactics include name-calling, demonization of a person, attacking his/her human values, linking a person to either a fictitious other group or known group antithetical in view point, misrepresentation of the facts and character assassination. I could offer multiple more examples but this would change the focus of my argument. Those of us who live here understand this is the daily response to opposing points of view. Do the reporters have the same right of “freedom of speech”-of course they do. Every one has a right to an opinion but we do not have the right to misrepresent facts. When this occurs, we challenge the speaker or writer. However, if one does not have access or control over the media the message does not reside in the universe of public knowledge and our freedom to deliver is abated.

Have you ever offered an idea at a staff meeting only to have the leader rebuke you in front of your peers? How many times did this happen before you stopped offering your ideas? Although you have the “freedom to speak”, you learned you do not have control or power to deliver-the result is to refrain from speaking. Repeat this often enough, over time, one learns to not exercise this precious freedom. Politicians understand this human behavior principle-for example; Mr. Netanyahu “called Yaalon to his office” to scold him for making such remarks. Mr. Yaalon responded by saying he was misunderstood. You say to this naïve writer that don’t you know, this is only politics? Of course I know, and do you know it is damaging Israel? The danger is that most do not see the dangers and this is the pity of all of this.

Israel is transfixed with America. It is therefore no wonder that the same tactics are used there. Currently Whole Foods, a large food chain in America is under siege.
“Meanwhile, a la Saul Alinsky, the Left isolates, demonizes and destroys their "enemies," that is anyone who disagrees with them.
Case in point: The current boycott of Whole Foods because John Mackey, the CEO, has his own opinions about health care and expressed these in the Wall Street Journal.”4 If you disagree using your freedom of speech the Left responds in kind.

“The result: a nation wide, well publicized campaign of nasty phone calls and e mails to local stores. Ironically, if you've ever been in a Whole Foods, you know that 99.9% of the employees are mega Obama fans. And when Obama was campaigning in Iowa, didn't he wax rhapsodic about the arugula there?4

I mention this one case from America because it personifies the essence of the tactics used here in Israel. Some would submit that we learned from the Americans and are currently funded by international sources. We have been “coached” by Left wing individuals who have “visited” Israel as “consultants”. Collectively the Left controls the information and the public talking and the result is the lack of implementation of freedom of speech as it was intended.

End Notes
1. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). On Liberty. 1869
2. Gal Wettstein, Graduate Student, Tel Aviv
3. Israel National News
4. YNET News, August 21,200

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk