A Response from the Office of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu

[shira]

Dear Mr. Stengel,

I wanted to bring to your attention a recent article in Time entitled "Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives." I hope that you will agree that the article's obvious bias and numerous distortions are not worthy of the standards of your prestigious magazine.

Israel is depicted in the article as essentially sliding towards fascism. Your correspondent refers to Israel's Shin Bet (the equivalent of the FBI) as a "secret police," claims that the Israeli government "increasingly equates dissent with disloyalty," and accuses the Prime Minister of "taking a page from neighboring authoritarian states."

The evidence offered for these outrageous allegations includes a preliminary vote in our parliament that would require naturalized citizens to make a pledge of allegiance, a proposal to strip citizenship from Israelis convicted of espionage and terrorism, a motion to investigate foreign government funding of local NGOs, calls on Jews to not rent property to Arabs, and demonstrations demanding prohibitions of Arab boys from dating Jewish girls.

But your correspondent did not find it necessary to inform your readers of a few facts.

<snip>

more...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043016,00.html#ixzz1BWDREWrB

[aranthus]

1. Damn good letter.

A little perspective can be a beautiful thing. Thanks for posting this.

[Dick Dastardly]

4. I second your comment

Just about anything Israel does regardless of whether it is actually problematic or not is distorted twisted and magnified by some into something it is not, all in order to make it into something usefull to demonize Israel. Israel is constantly subjected to double standards and is taken to task for things that occur in many countries but are only a problem or distorted into a problem when its Israel doing it.

[shira]

5. If this type of deliberate distortion were aimed at Hamas/PLO, it would certainly be labeled racist.

Here's a recent article WRT what passes as "reporting" on Israel these days...

How "News" of Israel-Palestinian Coverage is Really Created

How incredibly bad is media coverage of Israel-Palestinian issues and of the Middle East in general? Here’s an example.

CNN has just run a report on how wonderfully moderate the Palestinian Authority (PA) is. They are threatening to fire imams of West Bank mosques who are spewing out incitement against Israel and demanding that sermons be toned down!

Well, first of all this claim began five months ago, when the PA started peddling it, and I wrote about it almost three months ago, after liberal American Jews began citing it as another demonstration of the PA's moderation. It is not a new story at all.

Second, unlike what news reports are supposed to do, this doesn’t name actual imams who have been threatened, fired, or any evidence that sermons have changed in town.

Third, we constantly hear West Bank sermons and they are by no means becoming more moderate. The same goes, of course, with the West Bank newspapers, leaders' speeches, and television. (See examples at the end of this article).

<snip>

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-news-of-israel-palestinian-coverage.html

[shaayecanaan]

10. It cuts both ways...

if the government of Sweden, for example, passed a bill even at a cabinet or committee stage requiring non-Protestants to swear loyalty to the State you can guarantee that this would elicit criticism from Muslims and Jews in Sweden.

Israel holds itself out as being a properly functioning, democratic republic. If so then it should be expected to be held to the same standards normally expected of such countries.

The constant whining about being "demonised" is simply puerile and asinine. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have well-oiled public relations machines that campaign against each other in the media - indeed, the Israeli public relations machine largely pre-dates the Palestinian one.

The essential object of these campaigns is to enhance the moral standing of your own side and to attack the standing of the other. The Palestinians were the losing side in this battle for many long years. Since the mid-1990s they have become much more media-savvy and now it is Israel that is losing the public relations war, thanks largely to Israel's own egregious policies. That Israel should object to this development by claiming that it is being unfairly "demonised" or "delegitimised" is simply rubbish - it chose to engage the Palestinians in a public relations war and it is now losing. Too bad.

[shira]

11. News isn't being routinely manufactured to portray Hamas/PLO falsely....

http://israelinsider.net/forum/topics/barry-rubin-how-news-is
http://israelinsider.net/forum/topics/barry-rubin-this-latest

If this were happening in any media outlet vs. Hamas/PLO, it would be labeled racist.

In fact, Hamas and the PLO's state-sponsored antisemitic media, textbooks, politics, etc... is usually censored by the same media trying to portray Hamas/PLO as "moderates". Apparently it's "racist" to report the daily (and once again state-sponsored) anti-Jew incitement (shit that would make Nazis blush) throughout the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace.

There is no other country on this planet more falsely portrayed than Israel. In fact, no other country comes close.

[shaayecanaan]

2. A couple of problems with that letter...

"Oaths of allegiance are commonplace in most democratic countries, including the United States. Naturalized citizens in America swear an oath to its Constitution and to defend the country against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Israel's proposed pledge would require naturalized citizens to swear an oath to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, words taken directly from our Declaration of Independence."

The Israeli proposal required only non-Jewish naturalised citizens to swear loyalty to Israel. This would be analogous to the US requiring only black people to swear the oath of allegiance.

"FARA requires that any organization engaged in lobbying in the U.S. that receives money from foreign individuals, let alone foreign governments, must among other things register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice and permit the Attorney General to inspect all of its activities."

This is hypocrisy at its finest. Netanyahu himself receives political donations from foreign individuals (such as Joe Gutnick from Australia and US billionaire Sheldon Adelson). Israeli politicians and parties frequently solicit and receive donations from foreign sources, as do Israeli right-wing organisations, including settler organisations. Netanyahu is effectively saying you can take as much foreign money as you like, as long as it is Jewish and definitely not Arab.

[shira]

3. LOL.

"This would be analogous to the US requiring only black people to swear the oath of allegiance."

Requiring all non-Jews (including WASPs) to swear loyalty to a Jewish state is racist? It isn't an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, or anti-Black law.

"Netanyahu is effectively saying you can take as much foreign money as you like, as long as it is Jewish and definitely not Arab."

Nope.

Only that the public has the right to know where funding is coming from.

[hayu_lol]

6. Not so strange that a country, which flies a ...

flag with a Star Of David on it, would require of all non-jewish applicants for citizenship to swear an oath to protect and defend a Jewish and Democratic state. We do the same here except that we are NOT a christian nation(Treaty of Tripoli). England is a christian nation...the Queen is the head of the Episcopal church(Church of England).

Will the eventual state of Palestine--or whatever 'they' decide to call it--have an oath swearing loyalty to the Islamic State Of Palestine?

The object of such oaths become a matter to settle legal squabbles down the road a bit. No surprises at the time of such oath-taking.

Individuals frequently violate such oaths and end up living in prison for their lapses.

Israel is both Jewish and Democratic so why not just say so when taking the oath of citizenship?

[shaayecanaan]

8. Would you feel better if all non-WASPs were required to swear...

the pledge of allegiance? Even by your standards, that is a stupid remark.

Only that the public has the right to know where funding is coming from.

I have no objection to that, but it has to be across the board. Right now the focus is solely on left-wing NGOs, which is hypocritical.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Of course it's racist!

It's *exactly* the same as requiring all black South Africans to swear allegiance to South Africa as a white state. It's as explicitly and blatantly racist as these things come.

[oberliner]

13. Nothing racist whatsoever involved

There are Jews of a variety of different races in Israel.

Maybe have a look at some of the photos in this msnbc piece:

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/18/5870681-ethiopian-jews-fly-into-tel-aviv-to-begin-a-new-life-as-israeli-citizens

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. And there were many different races of white people in South Africa.

I am Jewish, purely as a result of birth. Discriminating in favour of me and against others on this grounds is explicitly racist.

[oberliner]

16. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

The apartheid system in South Africa was explicitly based on race.

Being Jewish has nothing to do with race. People of any race can be Jewish. People can covert to Judaism. You can't convert to being white.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Oh, come off it.

Yes, people can convert to being Jewish - it's not common or easy, but it happens. But "being Jewish has nothing to do with race"? Seriously? You really believe that?

[oberliner]

20. Here is some basic information that may help you

There is tremendous diversity with respect to race among Jewish people.

Have you looked at the photos at the link I sent you?

Anyway, maybe these links can help you:

Judaism is not a race

Judaism is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry. For instance, Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews are both "Jewish." However, whereas Ashkenazi Jews often hail from Europe, Sephardic Jews often hail from the Middle East. People of many different races have become Jewish over the centuries.

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/beingjewish.htm

Jews are clearly not a race.

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

It is bizarre that this even needs to be stated. Seems pretty self-evident.

[shaayecanaan]

27. This is a silly argument that you have tried to present before...

the obvious rejoinder is that both racism and race are social rather than biological constructs, and therefore racism should properly be characterised as the perceptions and attitudes of those who hold such views rather than by attempting any objective or biological definition of race.

Ergo, the Nazis were racist because they considered Jews to be a different race and hated them accordingly. I don't think your etymological point regarding race changes things all that much.

Likewise, the genocide by Hutus and Tutsis was racist, even though they are both of the same skin colour and linguistic group. The same for Serbs and Croats, et cetera, et cetera.

[oberliner]

29. It's not silly and it's not my argument

That Jews are not a race is a pretty well-establish fact.

President Carter has made the same point repeatedly. In spite of his very pointed criticism of Israeli policies, he has gone out of way on several occasions to note that it has nothing to do with race or racism.

For example:

"I've never alleged that the framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, and that what does exist in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land and not on racism. So it was a very clear distinction."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/21/le.01.html

[shaayecanaan]

34. Thats not a response to my point at all...

you simply quoted an former American politician saying it ain\'t so. Normally that is described as an \"argument from authority\" but given that Carter is no expert on sociology Im not sure it qualifies as even that.

When you attempted this argument previously I remarked that it was on the same level as arguing that Arabs could not be anti-semites as Arabs are also Semitic. The commonality is that both arguments are based on technical sophistry whilst having no moral or intellectual honesty.

[oberliner]

35. In fact, it is

An "argument from authority" fallacy would be if I was trying to claim that because President Carter said it, then it must be true. That is not what I am trying to establish.

The premise I am trying to prove is that this argument is not my argument. I have done so by indicating that another prominent person has made the same argument long before I did.

Providing President Carter's remarks does precisely that.

Your argument with respect to "anti-semites" is based on a common misunderstanding of the term - assuming that "anti-semite" has something to do with "Semites" when in fact the two terms are unrelated.

This has been pointed out numerous times here.

The fact that Jews are not a race and that Israeli policies towards Palestinians have nothing to do with racism ought to be self-evident.

To re=itereate a few points - Jewish people come from a variety of different races, anyone of any race can convert to being Jewish, and Palestinians and Jewish Israelis are often times of the same race.

You don't need to be a sociologist to understand that race is not a factor here.

Making false claims about racism is neither morally nor intellectually honest and ought not to be part of the discussion here.

[shira]

23. No it's not racist. A closer analogy is requiring non-Greeks to swear an oath to Greece...

...as the Greek state, the natural home of all ethnic Greeks worldwide.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

No, that would be analogous to swearing allegiance to an Israeli state. N.T.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. No, that would be analogous to swearing allegiance to an Israeli state. N.T.

[shira]

26. No. Ethnic Greeks worldwide have a nation they can call home, just like Jews.

Your analogy was utterly ridiculous.

Besides, Israel could just as well refer to the nation of Israel, the Jews, as it has throughout time well before 1948.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Jews can call their homelands home. For many of us, that's not Israel.

"Ethnic greeks" (is that even a meaningful term?) and Jews can both call whatever their homeland is home. If they're natives of a country other than Greece or Israel, and their ancestors have been for generations, then that country, and not Greece or Israel, is their homeland.

I am British - not integrated, not assimilated, or anything else like that, just British. I am also Jewish; that's a matter of ethnicity, not nationality. The shared myth of the zionists and the antisemites - that I have some connection with Israel, and that my connection with my homeland is any less than anyone else's - is stupid, wicked and deeply offensive.

[oberliner]

30. What a "stupid, wicked, and deeply offensive" comment

I am not sure what brand of Judaism you practice, but to say that there is no connection between Israel and being Jewish is one of the more bizarre things I have read here. The land of Israel is central to Judaism. There is hardly a prayer that does not reference Israel and Jerusalem.

With what phrase do you end your Passover seder?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. I'm completely secular.

I agree with you that the land of Israel is completely central to the Jewish *religion*. The state of Israel discriminates not merely in favour of practitioners of the Jewish religion, but in favour of members of the Jewish ethnic group (like me), too.


>With what phrase do you end your Passover seder?

Depends on which member of the family is the celebrant that year, but I always add "kayn aynorah" afterwards if they refer to being in the land of Israel (yes, I do go to a family seder once a year).

[oberliner]

32. Thank you for sharing that

I do not see, however, how you can claim that you are a member of "the Jewish ethnic group" as Ashkenazim and Sephardim, for instance, are two very distinct ethnic groups, yet both are Jewish (to say nothing of the aforementioned Ethiopian Jews).

Perhaps the difference is semantic, but though you are incredibly resistant to the idea of a Jewish nationality, it seems to be that is exactly what you are claiming to be a part of (since you are not religious).

A nation, if I may use the definition posted on Wikipedia, is "a grouping of people who share real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin" - this certainly seems an apt description of Jewish people, especially if one is not looking at being Jewish as being related to observing/practicing the religion of Judaism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Two very different senses of nation.

The word nation is sometimes used in the sense you give. However, more usually it's used in the sense of a state; the political expression of a geopgraphical area. The word "nationality" almost always refers to the second sense, except when it's being used for polemical purposes.

The Jews clearly are a "nation" in the same way that the Roma, say, or the Liverpudlians or the Sioux are. But we aren't a nation in the same way that the British or the Americans or the Israelis are.

[Dick Dastardly]

7. A couple problems with your comments

The Israeli proposal required only non-Jewish naturalised citizens to swear loyalty to Israel. This would be analogous to the US requiring only black people to swear the oath of allegiance.

Not even close

Israel is being bashed as if its already a law when its not. It is only in a draft stage. Just like most countries bad laws are proposed but dont ever pass as well as are amended to make it better before they do pass. This proposed law has not passed yet but has since been amended to include all regardless whether Jewish or not. Besides the fact some bash Israel as if its law, they also convieniantly leave out the fact it has been amended to include everyone.


Israel 'loyalty' oath applies to all
October 19, 2010
.Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday ordered that a controversial loyalty oath to Israel as a "Jewish state" be amended to apply to both Jews and non-Jews, a statement from his office said.

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered Justice Minister (Yaakov) Neeman to prepare a government bill that will apply the declaration of loyalty to a Jewish and democratic state also to Jews wanting to become citizens under the Law of Return," a brief statement from his office said.

A spokesman for the prime minister confirmed that the amendment would mean the loyalty oath would apply to everyone wishing to become a citizen of Israel, and not just non-Jews.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/israel-loyalty-oath-applies-to-all-20101019-16raa.html

This is hypocrisy at its finest. Netanyahu himself receives political donations from foreign individuals (such as Joe Gutnick from Australia and US billionaire Sheldon Adelson). Israeli politicians and parties frequently solicit and receive donations from foreign sources, as do Israeli right-wing organisations, including settler organisations. Netanyahu is effectively saying you can take as much foreign money as you like, as long as it is Jewish and definitely not Arab.

No, as was previously stated its aimed at transparency.

[shaayecanaan]

9. I said "proposal"

currently there are two versions of the loyalty oath bill.

The first is the original version which was passed by Cabinet in October which requires only non-Jews to swear an oath. There is also a proposed amendment that was prepared by the Prime Minister requiring all new citizens to swear loyalty. Shas and the other orthodox parties object to the new version and are still supporting the original. It is possible that one or both may come to a vote but unless the disagreement is resolved probably neither version will pass.

The NGO bill has been expanded to apply to the following:-

"However, it demands that all Israeli non-profit associations, including NGOs, human-rights organisations and peace groups, as well as charitable corporations such as theatres and cultural organisations, report within 30 days to the Registrar of Associations on every sum of funding they receive from a foreign government or government-funded donor. It requires them to detail not only the sum of money donated, its purpose and the identity of the donor, but also all agreements reached between the donor and the grantee, whether direct or indirect, and whether orally or in writing."

http://www.jnews.org.uk/news/modified-bill-to-monitor-funding-of-israeli-ngos-discussed

Presumably, this would apply to even small regional playhouses that host Cossack dancers from Russia or a Tattoo from Edinburgh. Its a fairly extraordinary bill.

[oberliner]

14. If all citizens were required to swear the oath, would you object?

Interesting poll findings in that regard:

Only 6% of Jewish Israelis and 3% of Arab Israelis said they would support the so-called “loyalty oath,” which would require would-be citizens pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, if it was only required of non-Jews. On the other hand, the poll found that 55% of Jews and 17% of Arabs support such a law if it were to apply to all applicants.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. A loyalty oath should not require support for particular political positions. N.T.

[oberliner]

19. The question was directed at the other poster based on the comments they made

The loyalty oath has nothing to do with supporting any political positions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Of course it does.

That Israel should be a Jewish state rather than an Israeli state or a state for all its citizens is very much a political position.

[oberliner]

22. No it doesn't at all.

Israel is the Jewish State. That is not a political position.

Maybe you should read UN General Assembly Resolution 181 to learn more.

Here is a link that may help you:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. That it should continue to be, however, very much is. N.T.