To the Editor:
There is an inherent contradiction in smear attacks like Noah Pollak’s tirade against B’Tselem [“The B’Tselem Witch Trials,” May]. On the one hand, Mr. Pollak would like to convince his readers that the world-respected Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is an insignificant and alien fringe group in Israel. But this contradicts the claim that the same B’Tselem is an awesome force—one that can almost singlehandedly trick Justice Goldstone into authoring a bogus report—that poses a mortal danger to Israel’s mere existence. Commentary’s description of the article went even further, labeling B’Tselem, “the world’s most destructive anti-Israel organization.”
The truth is that B’Tselem’s limited, yet not negligible, strength stems precisely from the fact that we—our staff, our operations, and our rationale—are intrinsically Israeli. Certainly we are more Israeli than Americans who command us to march in lockstep with our government while maintaining a healthy skepticism toward their own. B’Tselem and the moral debate we stoke over our country’s human-rights record are an inherent part of Israel’s culture, history, and psyche. In that sense B’Tselem is as Israeli as falafel, although, just like our national dish, it is not always easy on stomach.
Mr. Pollak’s article relies on irresponsible and manipulative paraphrasing of statements by B’Tselem and people affiliated with it. Much of this is twisted out of recognition to advance rehashed attacks, the most contemptible being the patently false accusation that B’Tselem tolerates, even supports, Palestinian violence against Israelis. There is not much new in this laundry list of accusations, nor does the article contain revelations not already “exposed” by those Google warriors who trawl the Internet for “damning” material against any critical Israeli voice.
But the practice of unearthing supposedly unflattering evidence to discredit dissent is half the picture. The other half is the conscious choice to obscure and hide information that would contradict Mr. Pollak’s false thesis. How would readers respond to the fact that B’Tselem consistently denounces Palestinian suicide bombings and rocket attacks as war crimes; demands Hamas release unconditionally the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit; and publicly criticizes aspects of the Goldstone Report? How would Mr. Pollak’s theory hold up to the fact that the Israeli army’s military advocate general, Avichai Mandelblit, went on record to say that “B’Tselem strives for the truth” and that the organization assisted the military in its investigations? Or to the fact that B’Tselem’s staff routinely meets with command and legal echelons of the military?
It is no coincidence that this article is based almost purely on English-language sources. Hebrew readers and speakers who experience Israeli society firsthand are aware of countless Israeli criticisms of our country’s settlement policy and treatment of the Palestinians. Our newspapers, radio shows, Internet, and blogosphere, even our most popular comedy show, Eretz Nehederet, criticize aspects of our government’s policies. Many mainstream Israeli commentators who fear our growing isolation and our country’s plummeting international position blame not whistleblowers such as B’Tselem, but rather our collective greed for Palestinian land, which has led to a half million Israelis living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem with prospects for a viable Palestinian state trickling away.
The truth is, our society is much more diverse, and public argument and dissent more common, than what any self-appointed Israeli government apologists would have the world think. The diversity and vitality of Israeli public debate should be celebrated rather than stifled. B’Tselem is certainly far from popular in our country. (Show me a truly self-critical human-rights defender who wins popularity contests.) But even at this polarized period in Israeli history we proudly boast a public council made up of some of the most notable Israelis this country has ever produced. David Grossman, Amos Oz, Chava Alberstein, Gila Almagor, Mordechai Kremnitzer, Ruth Dayan, Alice Shalvi, and Rabbi David Rosen, among many others, have publicly pledged their support for B’Tselem and its work. B’Tselem is proud of its current and former board members, both those maligned by Mr. Pollak for their opinions and public activism as well as those obscured by him, probably because their own stated opinions don’t serve his “wolf in sheep’s clothing” thesis. With all their support, B’Tselem will continue to be a proud and critical voice in Israeli society.
Sarit Michaeli
B’Tselem, Jerusalem
_____________
Noah Pollak writes:
Sarit Michaeli’s complaint against me takes the form of two arguments. In the first, I am accused of misrepresenting the viciously anti-Israel statements made by numerous high-ranking B’Tselem officials. My article, says Ms. Michaeli, “relies on irresponsible and manipulative paraphrasing of statements…twisted out of recognition.”
If this is so, why does B’Tselem not provide a single example to substantiate the claim? Such evidence would be a devastating rejoinder to my article, a silver bullet that would exonerate B’Tselem and focus attention on my credibility deficit. Yet Ms. Michaeli gives not a single example of “paraphrasing” or “manipulation.” The reason is because this charge—like so much of B’Tselem’s work—is a false and meritless accusation. The quotes I used are unambiguous and authentic, and they speak for themselves. Anyone who doubts their accuracy can consult the online version of the piece, where every one of them is hyperlinked to its original source.
Ms. Michaeli’s second argument is equally vaporous. Here, B’Tselem reverts to the standard debating tactic of Israeli “human rights” NGOs whenever they are criticized: brag of the bravery of dissent, and accuse critics of attempting to silence debate. B’Tselem, the letter says, dares voice criticism and acts as a “whistleblower.” “Debate,” it concludes, “should be celebrated rather than stifled.” Well, yes, I agree completely—and my way of participating in this debate was to write a lengthy critique of B’Tselem, one which, as assuredly as B’Tselem’s next report will accuse Israel of violating international law, I knew the organization would greet with the Orwellian claim that by the very act of debating, I am stifling debate.
It is fitting that B’Tselem denigrates the revelation of its leaders’ astonishing denunciations of Israel and Zionism as the product of “Google searches.” I encourage B’Tselem to adopt the practice of conducting research. If B’Tselem employees entered words such as “collective punishment,” “disproportionality,” and “the Geneva Conventions” into Google, they might discover to their great discomfiture that these are not mere slogans to be deployed against whatever one doesn’t like, but concepts with reasonably clear definitions, ones that do not apply to every Israeli security measure. B’Tselem often lectures about the virtues of transparency and accountability. Yet when uncomfortable truths are disclosed about B’Tselem, suddenly transparency is denigrated as “Google searches” and accountability is dismissed as an attempt to stifle debate and persecute dissenters.
If only there were some actual substance from B’Tselem’s letter to which I could respond, some defense of Anat Biletzki’s analogizing the Jewish State to Nazi Germany, or an attempt to explain why the current and former chair of B’Tselem have both signed petitions lauding Palestinian terrorism. It should be obvious by now that B’Tselem cannot respond to these revelations because to do so would be to acknowledge their veracity. And that acknowledgement would expose the ugly truth that B’Tselem works so hard to disguise—that it is not a human-rights organization, but a massive exercise in bad faith, concealing its anti-Israel agenda behind a facade of meretricious human-rights activism.
