opinions
NGOs remained silent as Hamas shelled Israel — condemnation began only after Israel responded Silence is golden. So goes the proverb. But silence can be deadly when nongovernmental organizations claiming the mantles of human rights and peace fail to speak out when the lives of millions of Israelis are threatened by indiscriminate rocket fire. Each rocket from Gaza is a war crime, but only after Israel responded forcefully on Nov. 14 did these NGOs suddenly speak. In the weeks prior to Operation Pillar of Defense, one such group, the Oakland-based Jewish Voice for Peace, lost its voice when Hamas and other terror groups were bombarding southern Israel. JVP was silent as 1 million Israelis were forced into shelters, as dozens were wounded, and children were traumatized. Only after the Israel Defense Forces responded was JVP’s laryngitis cured. In record time, they created a section on their website called “Take Action for Gaza” complete with links to anti-Israel protests around the world (at the Nov. 16 San Francisco protest promoted on this list, “peace activists” chanted “Zionist scum, your time has come”) and a “Gaza protest toolkit.” The “toolkit” offers downloadable graphics with slogans like “Another Jew Against Attacks on Civilians. Stop the Bombs. Stop the Siege. Stop the Blank Check to the Israeli Military with U.S. Tax Dollars.” Yitzhak Santis is chief programs officer at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem. He made aliyah two years ago and is the immediate past director of Middle East affairs at the San Francisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council.
But JVP offers no slogans protesting Hamas war crimes Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Gisha, Palestinian against Israeli civilians. Center for Human Rights, Medical Aid for Palestinians, In a further display of cynically exploiting moral val- BADIL, Sabeel, and many more. ues, JVP’s official press release explicitly blames the Gaza This is nothing new. These groups employ the strategy crisis on Israel. Not until the statement’s fourth sentence, of using human rights language to attack Israel that was without naming Hamas or any other terror group, does adopted during the infamous 2001 U.N. “anti-racism” JVP “also urge the end of rocket attacks from Gaza into conference in Durban. At that gathering, some 1,500 civilian communities in Israel.” Their statement also NGOs embraced a declaration calling on the “internaholds Israel responsible “for the well-being and safety of tional community to impose a policy of complete and Palestinian civilians in Gaza.” total isolation of Israel.” This But JVP fails to hold Hamas declaration of political war, the responsible for the safety of JVP offers no slogans “Durban strategy,” seeks to Israeli civilians. Nor does undermine the legitimacy of JVP’s statement demand that protesting Hamas war the right of the Jewish people Hamas protect Gazans situatto sovereign equality. The boyed near weapons depots and crimes against Israeli cott, divestment and sanctions launch sites deliberately (BDS) campaign is its main placed by Hamas in populated civilians. thrust. Many of these NGOs, areas. including JVP, support BDS. Amnesty International, For these NGOs, the rights which has a history of intense anti-Israeli ideological bias, of millions of Israelis to live in security are secondary to was also silent during the weeks of Hamas rocket attacks. their program of undermining Israel’s right to defend its Like JVP, Amnesty released a statement only after the IDF citizens. In this way these NGOs act, whether by design or responded, condemning Israel for placing “civilians in by accident, as the de facto soft power arm for Hamas and Gaza and southern Israel at grave risk by re-igniting the its ilk. armed conflict there.” In this warped and immoral logic, In the Bay Area, the local manifestation of this antiit is not Hamas that is guilty of war crimes, but rather the Israel NGO network is seen in the numerous anti-Israel IDF and Israeli officials who are defending their citizens. rallies outside the Israeli Consulate. These local anti-Israel The pattern of silence in the face of Israeli civilian suf- groups are plugged into the global NGO network. JVP’s fering, and thunderous condemnation when Israel posting a link on its website to “global actions” against defends its citizens, is repeated by dozens of other NGOs Israel demonstrates this clearly. This is a case of the Bay (primarily funded by the EU, European governments, Area’s progressive values gone awry. Speaking out against and in some cases, the New Israel Fund), such as the policies with which one does not agree is not the NGOs, 24 Alternative Information Center, Oxfam International, ■ ■ ■
For Israel, it’s easier to go into Gaza than to get out Of all the merits of the Iron Dome system, my favorite is its ability to distinguish between a malignant missile and a benign one, between a dangerous enemy and an insignificant one, between wheat and chaff. Had the Americans developed such a system, they would have programmed it to fire at anything that flies, regardless of the cost. They go for quantity; we go for quality. They go for destruction; we go for distinction. In short, Iron Dome stokes Israeli pride. During one of my long nights in Beersheva, between one color red alert and the next, I thought to myself: It’s a shame that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t an Iron Dome. He has learned so many important things during his years in politics, but he hasn’t learned to separate wheat from chaff, to distinguish between a dangerous enemy and an insignificant one. Operation Pillar of Defense was meant to replicate Operation Cast Lead of four years ago, with some marginal improvements. The Israel Defense Forces, at the instructions of then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak, perceived the operation as one round of many: There were Nahum Barnea is a columnist at Ynetnews.com, where this piece originally appeared.
rules to the game between Israel and Hamas. The rules were gradually worn out to our disadvantage, both in terms of the Palestinians’ activity against the IDF and in terms of the permission Hamas gave itself and other organizations to fire rockets at Israeli communities. The IDF will deal the organizations a series of blows from the air. Egypt will intervene. A cease-fire will be obtained, based on the previous rules of the game. And then the rules will wear out again, and there will be another round, and another wear-out, and another round. Everyone understood that only two moves could break the vicious circle: occupying Gaza and keeping it under the control of IDF soldiers, or accepting Hamas. Netanyahu won’t agree to either one of them. The lessons learned from Operation Cast Lead were tactical: The intelligence improved, allowing Israel to bomb more important targets on the day the operation was launched; the use of different aircraft improved; the number of casualties among Gaza’s civilians was significantly reduced; and, of course, the Israelis in southern and central Israel felt more protected thanks to the Iron Dome system. But the main thing did not change. After days of fighting, and negotiations for a cease-fire this week, the government faces the same dilemma as did the previous government: Hamas is not giving up; its regime has not collapsed; Ismail Haniyeh has not come out of the bunker with his hands up. On the contrary, Hamas rockets have continued to fall, from Beersheva to Tel Aviv.
23
Compared with Cast Lead, the conditions have become even worse. Then, a large part of the Arab world hoped for Hamas’ downfall. Today, those same governments stand by Hamas. Then, Israel recruited Egypt to force a cease-fire on Hamas. Today, although the Egyptian government did lead negotiations to declare a cease-fire, its heart lies with Hamas, as well. What is the right thing to do? An Israeli agreement to end the operation without tilting the balance — essentially, a tie — will not be seen favorably by the public. That’s what happened at the end of Cast Lead: The voters were disappointed, and in the elections held three weeks later they transferred two Knesset seats from Kadima to the right. Then, Netanyahu was on the benefiting side. Now he’s on the responsible side. He chose a different way: To threaten Egypt and Hamas ENTERING, 24 ■ ■ ■
Local voices welcomed J. welcomes your local voice on timely Jewish issues and events of the day. Submissions will not be returned and are subject to editing or rejections. Approximate length: 750 words. e-mail text, not attachments, to editors@jweekly.com mail to J. the Jewish news weekly,
225 Bush St., #780, San Francisco, CA 94104
www.jweekly.com
| November 23, 2012