Exposed: 'Breaking the Silence' collects intelligence on the IDF - Does it reach their European masters?
Greetings from Boston where I have been working all week, and where the Sabbath does not start for several more hours. I will be here until Sunday morning. Sunday is a travel day, but I'm not heading back to Israel just yet. I'm heading West... (and should have WiFi access on the plane, so you may see a few more posts on Sunday). And for those who watch the weather reports, it looks like I will once again escape a serious winter snowstorm by the skin of my teeth, God Willing.
For those of you who have forgotten 'Breaking the Silence,' they are an organization that claims to be dedicated to exposing IDF abuses of 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria. They are funded by European governments, by the European Union (which awarded them the prestigious Andrei Sakharov prize) and by private American citizens (as well as by UNICEF and OxFam). Br'eaking the Silence' interviews discharged IDF soldiers and debriefs them regarding their IDF service. Or so they claim. It now seems that they do a lot more.
You might recall that recently, an organization called Ad Kan (Until Here) turned over video evidence to Israel's Channel 10 about human rights violations by 'human rights' groups Taayush and B'Tselem.Spreading the wealth, the group handed over material on 'Breaking the Silence' to Israel's Channel 2, which reported on it Thursday night (link and video in Hebrew). The material shows that 'Breaking the Silence' is collecting military intelligence which has no connection to 'human rights' violations in Judea and Samaria or anyplace else. And the unanswered question is 'with whom does 'Breaking the Silence' share that intelligence material?' That intelligence material could clearly and presently endanger the State of Israel.
In its investigation, Channel 2 cited unpublished testimonies from
Israeli soldiers that were obtained by the right-wing NGO Ad Kan, which
sent some of its members to join Breaking the Silence undercover. The
report claimed that Breaking the Silence collected “operational and
intelligence” information about IDF activities from both current and
former soldiers.
Channel 2 also broadcast videos of Breaking the Silence asking
soldiers “questions [that] appear to revolve more around their
operational activity rather issues regarding Palestinians and human
rights.”
While Breaking the Silence says it gathers anonymous testimonies from
Israeli soldiers about the IDF’s purported human rights abuses, these
testimonies have been previously criticized as being unsubstantiated and lacking context. In recent months, the group has come under increased scrutiny over the ethics of its practices.
In the wake of the new Channel 2 report, Breaking the Silence denied
any wrongdoing and emphasized that it works closely with Israel’s
military censor. Breaking the Silence CEO Yuli Novak added that several
organizations and members of the Knesset were trying “to silence” her
group.
And it seems that the next group to come under scrutiny may be 'rabbis' for 'human rights.'
The broadcast became headline news and the fallout
continued for weeks. Nawi was arrested at Ben-Gurion Airport when he
tried to flee the country.
A few days later, a follow-up program aired
more hidden-camera footage, this time showing Nawi with officials from
two other prominent “human rights” NGOs—Breaking the Silence (BtS) and
Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR). Both groups were shown giving money to
Nawi, who then handed out checks to Palestinians, apparently for taking
part in violent demonstrations. RHR claimed that Nawi was paid for
providing transportation services. BtS denounced everyone involved in
the program as “Stasi,” a reference to the notorious East German
intelligence service.
Steinberg observed that even before the broadcast of Nawi with
representatives of Breaking the Silence, there was growing criticism of
the group across the political spectrum in Israel.
Prior to the Uvda broadcasts, BtS and its patrons were
the particular focus of growing anger among many Israelis on the Right,
center, and even the center-Left. This anger followed a major jump in
the visibility of BtS, which reflected the group’s million- dollar
budget. BtS events in churches, universities, and national parliaments
around the world featured “anonymous testimony” that alleged systematic
immorality by IDF soldiers, with no corroborating evidence.
In response, hundreds of IDF reserve officers petitioned the Minister
of Defense, demanding that BtS activists be barred from speaking on
military bases. In parallel, relatives of terror victims and fallen
soldiers demanded that Education Minister Naftali Bennett prohibit BtS
from speaking to high school students. NGOs like B’Tselem were also
criticized. On Israel’s popular Saturday night satire program Gav Hauma,
host Lior Schleien did a ten-minute routine based on the issue,
primarily lampooning BtS and related NGOs.
I'm amazed that B'Tselem is allowed to speak on military bases.... But what Professor Steinberg says about anger coming from 'even the center-Left' is true. Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid has accused 'Breaking the Silence' of digging under the foundations of the State of Israel, and causing it both internal and external damage (link in Hebrew).
For those of you wondering why Israel feels the need to stop foreign governments from financing its NGO's, this is another data point.
Surprise: Ehud Barak tells biographers Israel canceled plans to attack Iran in 2010, 2011 and 2012
Israel's Channel 2 television obtained recordings of former Defense Minister (and Prime Minister and IDF Chief of Staff) Ehud Barak telling biographers that Israel planned to strike Iran in 2010, 2011 and 2012... and then called off the strikes because someone in the IDF (Gabi Ashkenazi) or the cabinet (Boogie Yaalon, Yuval Steinitz) objected . You can watch a CNN report about the recordings here.
Here in Israel, there is outrage over the report. Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Lieberman is accusing Barak of giving away state secrets.
Liberman told Army Radio that he was “more
than surprised” at Barak, and said statements such as those given by the
former minister would ultimately strengthen Iran.
“I think that when moves and discussions that
should have been closely guarded state secrets are discussed by the
press, it relays that you are a talker, that you aren’t serious, that
you’re unreliable,” he said.
“That is why, among other reasons, Iran is
being coddled by the international community, and we have been backed
into a corner… These things should only have been discussed in closed
forums.”
Asked whether he believed Barak was guilty of
revealing state secrets, Liberman responded that he had “no doubt” that
was the case.
And the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is opening an investigation... into how the tapes got out.
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Tzahi Hanegbi (Likud) said on Sunday he intends to investigate whether information divulged by former Defense Minister Ehud Barak regarding a possible Iran strike was properly cleared for publication, and if so, why.
...
Speaking to Israel Radio on Sunday, Hanegbi said such publications do not serve Israel's security interests. When asked if Barak harmed Israel's security, Hanegbi refuse to answer, but said that as the head of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee he plans to summon officials from the censor's office and hear their explanation.
Barak spoke of the plans in conversations with his biographers, Dani Dor and Ilan Kfir. Excerpts from the recordings were aired on Israel Channel 2’s weekly news magazine on Friday.
Channel 2 said Barak did not want the material released, but the IDF military censor approved the publication.
Obama: 'I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office'
I'm sure you'll all be shocked that the headlines have gone to his head. Yes, he really said that (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Obama’s close advisor David Axelrod was more critical of Netanyahu.
“The world of politics everywhere is
divided into two categories: the first and more common is the people who
run for public office because they want to be somebody,” he explained.
“A smaller group is made of respectable people who run for public office
because they want to do something – something positive. Shape the
future in a positive way. I think Benjamin Netanyahu completely falls in
the first category. He is a great politician. He knows what he needs to
do to get through the next election. But it seems to me that Israel has
to think about what they need to do to get through the next
generation.”
He also recalled Obama venting in a
moment of contemplation, telling him, ‘You know, I think I am the
closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office. For people to
say that I am anti-Israel, or, even worse, anti-Semitic, it hurts.’
Boo. Hoo. If you don't expect any appreciation, you'll never be disappointed. Obama seems to be disappointed all the time.
But he's far from being a Jew. And what he thinks being a Jew means comes from all the wrong places.
Bret Stephens reports that Obama supporter Peter Beinart says that we
have it all wrong. Obama's views on Israel came from a group of far Left
Chicago Jews, who “bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state” (Hat Tip: Herb G). (For those who - like me - do not have online access to the Wall Street Journal, you can find the full article here).
At
the center of this coterie, Mr. Beinart explains, was a Chicago rabbi
named Arnold Jacob Wolf. In 1969, Wolf staged a synagogue protest in
favor of Black Panther Bobby Seale. In the early 1970s, he founded an
organization that met with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation
Organization—this being some 20 years before Arafat officially renounced
terrorism. In the early 1990s, Wolf denounced the construction of the
Holocaust Museum in Washington.
And, in 1996, the rabbi “was one
of [Mr. Obama's] earliest and most prominent supporters” when he ran for
the Illinois state Senate. Wolf later described Mr. Obama’s views on
Israel as “on the line of Peace Now”—an organization with a long history
of blaming Israel for the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Mr. Obama had
other Jewish mentors, too, according to Mr. Beinart. One was Bettylu
Saltzman, whose father, developer Philip Klutznick, had joined Wolf in
“his break with the Israeli government in the 1970s.” Ms. Saltzman,
writes Mr. Beinart, “still seethes with hostility toward the mainstream
Jewish groups” and later became active in left-wing Jewish political
groups like J Street. Among other things, it was she who “organized the
rally against the Iraq War where Obama proclaimed his opposition to an
American invasion.”
Ms. Saltzman also introduced Mr. Obama to
David Axelrod, himself a longtime donor to a group called the New Israel
Fund. For a flavor of the NIF’s world view, a WikiLeaks cable from 2010
noted that an NIF associate director told U.S. embassy officials in Tel
Aviv that “the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy
that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.”
What I have to wonder about is the source for the David Axelrod quote and the others (Martin Indyk, Dan Shapiro). This is Eliyahu Berkowitz's opener to the article:
In advance of an exclusive interview with President Barack Obama,
Channel 2’s Ilana Dayan interviewed the people who were most close to
the president in the past years, finding out what happened to the
US-Israel relationship and what was really said behind closed doors.
And then she went around discussing it? This wasn't on background or off the record? You don't think that the White House planted some things it wanted to get out there with the generallysympathetic Yonit Levy and asked her to make sure they made the news in Israel, do you?
'Most pro-Israel administration evah' denies freezing Israel out of nuke talks
The White House is denying a report on Israel's Channel 2 that its infant occupant is freezing Israel out of all reports on the P 5+1 nuclear talks because Mr. Netanyahu is coming to Washington.
"Conversations continue with Israel on the Iran nuclear negotiations,"
one senior State Department official said. "Under Secretary [of State
for Political Affairs Wendy] Sherman met with Israeli NSA Cohen and
Minister for Intelligence and Strategic Planning Steinitz in Munich and
will see NSA Cohen again this week."
The official noted that the Iran talks were, "obviously," the main topic of conversation.
"And
Secretary [of State John] Kerry continues his conversations with Prime
Minister Netanyahu about this issue, as has always been the case," the
official continued.
The White House also rejected the report,
noting Cohen's upcoming meeting next week at the White House with
National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
"This report is patently
false," National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey told the
Post. "We also continue our frequent and routine contact at various
professional levels within the intelligence, military, and diplomatic
spheres."
The report is one of many from Israeli television that has been criticized in recent months by the White House.
And you thought that the White House ignored everything coming out of Israel unless it was reported by Haaretz....
In the next war, perhaps Hamas should reconsider its ban on Israeli reporters
Yonit Levi and Udi Segal look at the difference between what the world saw on television during Operation Protective Edge and what Israelis saw. They seem to believe that if Hamas would only allow Israeli reporters into Gaza, we too would sympathize more with the civilians Hamas uses as human shields than with our own people seeking shelter from Hamas' rockets. And they worry that after what Israelis saw this summer, most of us will not be foolish enough to support another 'withdrawal.'
During the 50 days of the war in Gaza,
Israelis, and the rest of the world were watching two completely
different wars. In Israel, the country was under attack and it was all
happening on live television: The camera leaped between different cities
being targeted—showing the rocket’s trajectory from the Gazan border,
the subsequent sirens, and civilians taking shelter in Israel and,
often, the rocket’s interception by the Iron Dome anti-missile system
several minutes later—moments of deep anxiety, followed by relief, over
and over, throughout the day. Israeli networks co-operating with the
IDF’s Home Front Command aired banners clearly stating which region was
under attack, and in some areas where the sirens weren’t loud enough,
this turned out to be life-saving information.
It might be difficult for an outsider to understand, but when your
child is spending their summer vacation running to find shelter—with
merely a 15-second warning in the south, 90 seconds in Tel Aviv—one has
limited emotional capacity to see what is happening to the children on
the other side. When you add to that the fact Hamas controlled all data
and information coming from Gaza—and banned Israeli reporters—you see
the juxtaposition emerging. The world showed the war in Gaza, and its
effect on Gazans, while on Israeli television Gaza was a sidebar.
Thus, while the world castigated Israel for using excessive force, on
Israeli television the prime minister was upbraided for not doing
enough—lengthy studio discussions brought forth the opinions of former
generals and, astonishingly, sitting cabinet ministers, saying more
could and should be done. Indeed, television was the only place the
phrase “we should reconquer Gaza” was stated over and over again, while
in reality no one in the Israeli government even came close to
contemplating such a move (although when asked about it in interviews,
even left-wing ministers made sure to stress that “all options” were on
the table).
Ten days into the war, when Hamas rejected a cease-fire offer and
sent terrorists through a tunnel into Israel, the IDF’s ground operation
began. Here, too, it is important to note the disparity: The
international media sees Israeli soldiers as legitimate military
targets, while to Israelis they are quite literally “our boys”—who are
sent off at the age of 18 into mandatory military service. In this war
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon’s close friend lost his son, the grandson
of a prominent left-wing politician was severely injured, and every
anchor or reporter knew someone who was fighting in Gaza. In Israel
there is often only one degree of separation.
Not only were Israelis watching a different war on television, but
the pictures they saw were embedded in a different narrative that, in a
nutshell, was this: We left the Gaza Strip, dismantled all settlements,
completely retreated to the 1967 lines, and the outcome was that Hamas
took over Gaza and we got rockets, which at any moment might strike our
homes. The world, in contrast, heard the story of Israel bombing
innocent civilians in an Israeli-made prison—and saw pictures of the
devastation inflicted by our military might.
I don't buy this. First, Israel is probably the most wired country in the world. While 40% of the country may have had the television going all the time as Levi and Segal claim (a figure I find hard to believe), I would bet that far more were using the web and social media and saw everything being aired by CNN, al-Beeb and all the other international media that is seen as so biased against us as to lack all credibility. And we weren't moved by it at all.
Israelis were promised that there would be no rockets from Gaza once we 'disengaged' in 2005. Those who warned otherwise were subjected to ridicule. Personally, I was called a 'Kahanist' on a certain 'conservative' web site (from which all conservatives have since been banned) for opposing the 'disengagement.' But we see that we were right. And most Israelis are not going to be fooled twice, no matter what our media tells us.
So yes, we will oppose withdrawing the IDF - and probably oppose withdrawing revenants from Judea and Samaria. But not because we were saturated with war coverage this past summer. We will oppose it because unlike Israel's Leftist media we have awoken and smelled the coffee.
Israel's Left is seething over this interview with senior 'Palestinian' official Jibril Rajoub, which was broadcast on Friday night.
Let's go to the videotape. The interview is in Hebrew, but an English summary follows.
Anchorman Danny Kushmaro asked Rajoub why PA leader Mahmoud Abbas
turned to the United Nations unilaterally instead of giving peace
negotiations a chance. Rajoub countered by claiming that Israel was
supposed to release 104 PA prisoners and that Israel was the one that
reneged on that deal.
Diplomatic correspondent Udi Segal told Rajoub that Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu was willing to carry out the fourth tranche of the
prisoner release, including terrorists who are Israeli citizens, and to
release 400 additional terrorist prisoners, and curtail construction in
Judea and Samaria. Why, he asked, did the PA decide to torpedo the talks
at the last minute? Arab affairs correspondent Ehud Yaari added his own
question: does Rajoub agree with Yasser Arafat, who said that the Jews
had never had a Temple in Jerusalem?
Rajoub answered that Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, Christians and
Muslims, and that the Muslims recognize the other religions, while Jews
are the ones who do not recognize Islam. “I cannot pray at the Al Aqsa
mosque,” he complained. Surprisingly, the secular Kushmaro retorted –
“It is I who cannot pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque, you and your friends are
free to pray there.”
Kushmaro asked what the PA has given Israel in the negotiations, in
return for the terrorist prisoners who were released. “We gave
everything,” said an agitated Rajoub. During the talks, Israel built
thousands of homes in Judea and Samaria and dozens of Palestinians were
killed, he said, yet the PA kept the peace on its side. Yaari pressed
him to cite any concession the PA has made in the negotiations. “You
don't know how difficult it was to continue in the negotiations!” –
exclaimed Rajoub.
Segal reminded Rajoub that he has called Israelis “Nazis” and has said that if the PA had a nuclear bomb, it would drop it on Israel immediately.
Rajoub replied by quoting a humorous Purim interview in which Minister
Naftali Bennett was asked what would happen if he was locked up in a
room with Mahmoud Abbas for three hours. Bennett said that Abbas would
wind up joining the Jewish Home party and added that he would ask him to
make coffee for everyone and call someone who really spoke for the PA
to negotiate instead of him.
This reply, said Rajoub, proved that Bennett sees Abbas as “a waiter whose job it is to make coffee for him.”
The interview was received with great enthusiasm by nationalists. The
grassroots My Israel called it “Jibril Rajoub in the den of lions.”
Columnist Kalman Libeskind of Maariv wrote that it was the first time in
memory in which a Palestinian official “is actually asked to answer
questions” in an Israeli interview.
"It was an unusual interview, the likes of which has not been heard
in our part of the world for a very long time,” he summed up.
May we see more interviews like this one in the future.
A new video appeared on the web site for Channel 2 Tuesday showed female
IDF soldiers dancing partially nude in the latest addition to the
scandal that erupted last week when pictures of the female soldiers were
distributed posing scantily-clad with guns, creating a frenzy with the
international media.
The soldiers' faces were exposed in the
recording and they could be seen dancing provocatively in front of the
camera half-nude with a gun being used in the fashion of a stripper's
pole.
According to Channel 2, the recording was distributed on social media networks over the past two days.
The
person seemingly recording the video can be heard saying she would
upload the footage onto Facebook and "tag" those who appear in it.
Last
week, a group of female Israeli soldiers were disciplined after
photographs of the soldiers posing in their underwear with guns, and
with combat helmets (but little else) were uploaded to Facebook.
And this has what to do with the IDF being a lean and mean fighting force? And you were wondering why the Haredim don't want to send their sons to the IDF.... Disgraceful.
Channel 2 goes to Judea and Samaria with the 'Palestinians' and 'Peace Now'
Here's a Channel 2 news report (with English subtitles) in which they go on a tour of Judea and Samaria with 'Peace Now' and see only 'Palestinians.' A few points to watch for on the way.
The seemingly egregious water situation is explained in the last 15 seconds of the video. The people who do these tours are Israeli Jews - one could call them self-hating. They certainly love the 'Palestinians' more than they love their fellow Jews. The security situation is completely ignored.
I'd write more but I'm having major jet lag problems (which I hope to resolve over the Sabbath) and just don't have the strength to think rationally.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
