In the New York Times, Jodi Rudoren’s welcome coverage of legendary Israeli human rights attorney Michael Sfard exposes, perhaps unwittingly, the hypocrisy of one of Israel’s key settler strategists.
A Champion for the Displaced in Israel
He sees his work as a mission to save the prospect of a two-state solution and preserve Israeli democracy. But he has at times unwittingly undermined his own agenda, when his microvictories in court prompt the right-leaning government to produce political macrovictories for his adversaries — leading to the legalization and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
……..
This week, Mr. Sfard’s chief adversary, the settler movement, bestowed on him honorary citizenship in “Judea and Samaria,” the biblical names for the West Bank, with a mock certificate noting that he “may have come to curse and cause damage” but had ended up “raising the morale and gladdening the hearts of those who love the Land.”
……..
“He sees the courts as the way to force the changes that he perceives as necessary for Israel,” said Gerald Steinberg, who runs NGO Monitor, a right-leaning group that examines organizations like those that support Mr. Sfard. “But he doesn’t convince the Israeli public. In any democratic process, you can’t use just the legal system to impose an ideology.”
Democratic process Mr. Steinberg? Who’s using the legal system to impose an ideology?
From Didi Remez’s Haaretz coverage, Exposing Gerald Steinberg and NGO Monitor :
Steinberg is savvier than [Netanyahu aide Ron] Dermer. Instead of a ban, he advocates “funding transparency.” Next Tuesday, he is organizing a Knesset conference to “debate” the issue. Israel’s beleaguered human rights activists are bracing for yet another round of demonization and delegitimization.
In formulating a response, some have argued for an appeal to reason. They want to explain to Steinberg and his organization that the suppression campaign is ill-advised and destructive; that it threatens to put Israel in the same camp as Putin’s Russia and other autocracies; and that it may provoke a retaliatory call by a European public, already dangerously hostile, to cut critical funding to Israeli hospitals, universities and R&D projects.
This approach is commendable, but futile. NGO Monitor is not an objective watchdog: It is a partisan operation that suppresses its perceived ideological adversaries through the sophisticated use of McCarthyite techniques – blacklisting, guilt by association and selective filtering of facts.
….
A central theme of its recent critiques has been of NGO “lawfare,” achieving “political” goals through the courts. There are at least three examples of pro-settler Israeli NGOs engaged in “lawfare,” as defined by NGO Monitor: the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, the Israel Law Center and Regavim, but you will not find even an acknowledgment of their existence among the hundreds of documents on its Web site. We have another option. Steinberg’s and Dermer’s cynicism has created an opportunity to dismantle the power structure that forces Israelis to continue defending Palestinian human rights, 42 years after the “temporary” occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began.
The dismantling of a democratic power structure and dissolution of civil liberties in Israel appears to be Steinberg’s priority. Sfard knows it too.
Rudoren’s finale:
“The process is no less important than the result,” he said. “I am addicted. It’s not a question of whether it’s depressing or not, but whether I can live without it.”
/Democratic process Mr. Steinberg? Who’s using the legal system to impose an ideology?/
Mostly the Israeli left Annie, the right NGO’s caught up on this strategy only
recently.
You really should do your homework when you write about Israeli internal
political struggles and that means not reading Haaretz as the prime
source of information since their ideology invariably means that they show only
a part of the picture, the left part.
You really should do your homework when you write about Israeli internal
political struggles and that means not reading…..
not reading didi remez? forget about it!
Did you miss that part where i said
“as the prime source of information” ?
Talking Zionism
link to counterpunch.org
A good article.
I like Avnery’s writing.
It was a good article, OlegR, but I’m curious to know what you liked about it. Or to be more specific, to what extent did you agree with Uri’s points and where (if anywhere) did you disagree?
I agree mostly with his representation of historic events that lead us to where
we are.
I agree that the word Zionism has become this symbol that everybody is trying to appropriate according to his or hers political goals.
I agree with the proposed solution ie 2SS.
I disagree that Zionism is now obsolete as Avnery argues.
That is because he gives his own interpretation of Zionism that differs from mine.
I don’t believe that once we proclaimed independence Zionism was done
and that we had to substitute it with something else.
I think Zionism had to evolve , and it did in different directions with some of which i do not agree.
In the end it’s matter of semantics Avnery was trying to be clever when he coined the term Post Zionism (which also since then has been appropriated to serve various political goals) .
Zionism means in my interpretation the need of the Jewish people of a
national state that can only be truly achieved in the historic homeland of the Jews hence our national conflict with the Palestinian Arabs.
Establishing a state is not enough, it has to survive in the long term
while retaining moral values that make it’s existence worth while to the Jewish people.(I think that Avnery would agree with the last sentence)
I don’t necessarily agree with this
“The current staunchly Zionist policy of the State of Israel contains an inherent paradox. It leads to self-destruction.”
I do agree that annexing the Judea and Samaria with it’s Arab population
would mean either moral or a political disaster (probably both) to Israel
as a state of the Jewish people.It would either mean the loss of the country as morally attractive to the Jews (well to me at the least) or the loss of a country as a Jewish state.
I also believe that expulsion of the Arabs from the land is both morally
objectionable and practically unfeasible .
But annexation of the land is just speculation in Avnery’s part at the moment.
The current status quo when Palestinians have no state but there is no large scale violence is in my opinion sustainable
as long as it suits both sides (Yes Palestinians as well ) and right now i believe that it does.
OlegR- How long do you think it will take the American Democratic party to break with Israel? It is sustainable as long as the support of America for Israel continues to be bipartisan. And regarding Israel’s exports to Europe, do you think there is a timeframe where the current acceptance of Israeli exports by Europe will come to an end?
The Arab spring has not produced immediate results, but that is a wheel still in spin that might affect the standoff/ status quo’s sustainability.
Thanks for the response. There’s some things there I disagree with, but maybe someone else will make that case. Right now I’m more in mood to hear differing views than to argue about them.
That’s because your interpretation of Zionism is the one you want, not the one we have to deal with.
You’re right. There was still more land to steal, so Zionism was not done yet.
Liberal Zionists like yourself like to pretend that the settlements are a bug in teh system, when in fact, they are a feature.
OLEGR- “I disagree that Zionism is now obsolete as Avnery argues.”
I agree. Zionism is the ideological glue which continues to unite organized world Jewry, having superseded the Judaic religion. The primary beneficiaries of modern Zionism are the American Jewish Zionist elites who benefit from the organized power that is Zionism, and from the containment of Jewish Marxism which caused so many problems in the past. The problem for Israeli Jews is the American Jewish Zionist need for Israel to be continually embattled.
“For Israel’s new American Jewish ‘supporter,’ however, such talk bordered on heresy: an independent Israel at peace with its neighbors was worthless; an Israel aligned with currents in the Arab world seeking independence from the United States was a disaster. Only an Israeli Sparta beholden to American power would do, because only then could US Jewish leaders act as spokesmen for American imperial ambitions.” (Norman Finkelstein)
On status quo and Arab spring read Brown in Open Zion.link to thedailybeast.com
“Zionism means in my interpretation the need of the Jewish people of a
national state that can only be truly achieved in the historic homeland of the Jews hence our national conflict with the Palestinian Arabs.”
Yes — but you see, the Jews whose homeland was Palestine are now by and large Palestinians. So your passage should read:
“Zionism means in my interpretation the need of the Jewish people of a
national state that can only be truly achieved in the historic homeland of the Palestinians hence our national conflict with the Palestinians.”
Which of course describes the situation much more accurately and helps to make the rights and wrongs of the matter clearer. It still begs the question of why the Jews would need a national state if they’ve never had one — but we’ll leave that for another post.
“…I also believe that expulsion of the Arabs from the land is both morally
objectionable and practically unfeasible .
But annexation of the land is just speculation in Avnery’s part at the moment.
The current status quo when Palestinians have no state but there is no large scale violence is in my opinion sustainable
as long as it suits both sides (Yes Palestinians as well ) and right now i believe that it does…”
Placed alongside what is actually going on, what this means is that you support herding the Palestinians into walled ghettos both by official action and unofficial terror. That is what is going on. By ‘no large scale violence’ you mean that the Palestinians are not mounting any effective resistance to the all-too dynamic process which you choose to describe as if it were a static status quo.
It’s not a status quo. It is roughly comparable to the behavior of the Nazis towards the Jewish population of Germany between 1933 and 1939. Thuggery, dispossession, and a creeping but methodical marginalization and ghettoization of the target population.
That is your ‘sustainable Israel.’
Keith.
I think that Finkelstein is making the same tail wag the dog argument only this time It’s Israel being wagged by AIPCA instead of the USA (which is Phillips argument) they are both wrong in my opinion.
Israel is an American vassal that does have some influence on his suzerain.
That is correct.
In the end though both states have strong influence on each other and as long as they don’t reach their red lines they keep the power play and try to influence the ally in their own direction and when they do reach the red line they act in accordance to their own interests disregarding the opinion of the peer.
For example USA forced Israel to back off in the last moment from a profitable spy plane sale deal with China to the extent that it damaged the Israel / Chinese relations for years and years.USA drew the line that case
and Israel didn’t reach it’s own since it was not crucial to it’s interests
to conduct that deal.
Yonah
/OlegR- How long do you think it will take the American Democratic party to break with Israel? /
I have no idea , i am only recently started getting interested in American internal politics. I America were to abandon Israel i don’t believe that it would happen from one party only it would happen all over the main political field (and i doubt it would have anything to do with the Palestinians specifically).
/And regarding Israel’s exports to Europe, do you think there is a timeframe where the current acceptance of Israeli exports by Europe will come to an end?/
Given the current economic crisis and the rise of the political right in Europe (often a very ugly political right) i don’t see Europe doing something like that certainly not as a monolithic body. Some states which
are better off might move in that direction but again this is not the number one problem in Europe right now not even in the top 10 or 20.
/The Arab spring has not produced immediate results, but that is a wheel still in spin that might affect the standoff/ status quo’s sustainability./
The Arab spring is a wild card can’t make any predictions there.
Egypt might annex (de facto ) Gaza, Jordanian kingdom might crumble after Syria borders might be redrawn again a new Kurdish state might be established, who knows…
All of these events have impact on us but they are all beyond our control
so i don’t see any reason to worry about them too much, we will just have to ride the storm and see how it goes.
/Yes — but you see, the Jews whose homeland was Palestine are now by and large Palestinians. So your passage should read:/
Care to clarify that statement ?
Colin come back to me when actually want to have a dialog instead of just throwing accusations and making false historical comparisons.
I don’t really have anything to say to you until then since it would just be a waste of time and bytes.
“dialog”
Aww, how Witty!
the right NGO’s caught up on this strategy only recently.
oh really. what’s your concept of ‘recent’ in this context.
There are at least three examples of pro-settler Israeli NGOs engaged in “lawfare,” as defined by NGO Monitor: the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, the Israel Law Center and Regavim, but you will not find even an acknowledgment of their existence among the hundreds of documents on its Web site.
Lawfare has always been one of the Zionist’s favorite tactics. They challenged citizenship laws, trade preferences, land transfer ordinances, you name it. They have franchises in every country with imaginative names like, wait for it, The Lawfare Project. link to thelawfareproject.org
Of course they’re the ones using the Law as a weapon of war, like the attempt to legalize Israel’s occupation and annexation of Jerusalem after it was acquired by force, i.e. link to americanbar.org
I was talking a about the political right Hostage.
Michael Sfard is the political left and i don’t think that he defines himself as
Anti Zionist.
I was talking a about the political right Hostage. Michael Sfard is the political left and i don’t think that he defines himself as Anti Zionist.
So what? I was talking about the Zionist’s too. The original Zionist program adopted by the political right and left was predicated upon the fundamental principle that the Jewish national home would be secured in accordance with public law.
The legal arguments employed by the political right in the Edmond Levy committee report are identical to those used by Moshe Shertok and the political left during the UN deliberations in 1947. He claimed that the Balfour Declaration had become “part of the law of the United Nations” under Article 80 of the Charter. link to unispal.un.org
Since that’s the case, Michael Sfard must be doing “God’s work” for both the political right and left, while laboring within the Zionist fold to insure that the national home is only secured using lawful methods.
Eli Likovski wrote an essay on the Status of the Jewish Agency and WZO which explained that when the Zionist Congress said “to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine, secured under public law” that they meant “public international law”. See page 32 of Daniel Judah Elazar, Alysa M. Dortort (editors) “Understanding the Jewish Agency: a handbook, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs*, 1984. (*Note: the JCPA represents the views of the political right).
Jacob Robinson was one of the lawyers advising the Jewish Agency when the UN Charter was adopted. The Yalta Conference recommended that the mandates be abolished or established under completely new rules as UN trusteeships. So, the Jewish Agency began planning for independence. Robinson explained that it also wrote a memo to the San Francisco Conference on the UN organization requesting that a safeguarding clause be included in the Charter which would say that no trusteeship agreement could alter the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate.
However, the UN conference rejected that suggestion and stipulated in article 80 of the Charter that the UN COULD conclude trusteeship agreements that altered or abolished rights contained in a mandate. See Jacob Robinson, Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to a Solution, Greenwood Press, 1971 Reprint (1947), page 2-3
We all know that the General Assembly retained the international status of Jerusalem under a new statute authored by the trusteeship council. That action was taken in accordance with the content and intent of Article 28 of the League of Nations Mandate. The General Assembly also partitioned the territory into two states and terminated the remaining provisions of the League Mandate. Both the UN and the Israeli Supreme Court have decided that rights conferred by the mandate ceased to exist when it was terminated.
Nobody heard about the NGO Monitor until about 3, 4 years ago.
At least i didn’t .
This whole lets go to court to achieve political goals
has been the left strategy since the 90′s which understandably pissed off the public that overwhelmingly did not vote for them since the 90′s.
This whole lets go to court to achieve political goals has been the left strategy since the 90′s which understandably pissed off the public
the right has always been more comfortable with assassinations.
Oh now you are just being mean :)
And you are repeating the usual Israeli left/right slander pattern.
The left was always accused of treason and the right of violence.
And you are repeating the usual Israeli left/right slander pattern.
as opposed to your fresh original hasbara i presume.
This whole lets go to court to achieve political goals has been the left strategy since the 90′s which understandably pissed off the public
Because the Israeli public does not understand the democratic concept and purpose of a judiciary.
This whole lets go to court thing is so..so..redundant. don’t you think? who needs democracy, pllllease.
Going to the courts in Israel seems to serve only the decidedly limited purpose of exposing Israel’s utter disregard for legality.
If the judges don’t issue some utterly contrived rationalization for whatever gross illegality is in question, the Israeli government simply ignores them. There’s no rule of the law there. If the courts are cooperative, and if it’s convenient, they are permitted to serve as a figleaf for Israel’s crimes.
That’s it.
When the court interprets the law in away that violates the spirit o the law and it’s original meaning then the court is doing a great disservice to
democracy.
“When the court interprets the law in away that violates the spirit o the law and it’s original meaning…”
You tell ‘em, OnanR! And anybody can determine the “spirit” and “original meaning with a quick perusal of the Constitution of Israel. Why it’s as easy to determine as the border!
I’m sorry, Onan, was I supposed to say “Torah” or “Tanakh” or something instead of “Constitution of Israel”? Gosh, it’s so confusing, but there’s one thing I know! OlegR here is Jewier than I’ll ever be, and I should listen to him. Why, he even speaks Hebrew!
When the court interprets the law in away that violates the spirit o the law and it’s original meaning then the court is doing a great disservice to
democracy.
Sez the great defender of democracy in Israel who fails to understand the actual purpose of a judiciary INSIDE, WITHIN, A DEMOCRACY.
No wonder your country is in such a mess, you’ve got all those ruskies who never grew up understanding these concepts.
“Nobody heard about the NGO Monitor until about 3, 4 years ago.
At least i didn’t .”
I think NGO ‘Monitor’ has been around longer than that.
What always struck me about it is how typically dishonest the name is. It hardly neutrally ‘monitors’ NGO’s — and if it’s ever attacked a settler NGO, do correct me.
It’s the usual Hasbara attack group — dolled up, as usual, with a lie for a name.
I can’t imagine former bureau chief Ethan Bronner writing this piece. A step forward.
I thought “addicted to the process” referred to the Ziobots. They have no clue where they are going. The Palestinians will destroy their ideology. Sumud versus “Jewish destiny”. There can be only be one winner. Sumud already has the crusader notch on its belt and Zionism has only been going for 100 years- the crusaders lasted twice that but sumud got them in the end.
Sfard is fighting to save the “2 state solution” which is racist apartheid codified into a treaty which says the Palestinians accept a cluster of bantustans. So, he is part of the problem. I can’t stand these Israeli racists being lionized in Mondoweiss, just because sometimes they are liberal racists.
Joseph Glatzer- I hear you. I assume you propose a one state solution that respects all minority rights. I would like to hear a word or two about how you get from here to there.
Sfard is fighting for a goal that he can see. Can you help me to see your goal?
Yonah,
Do what we did. Adopt the Iroquois First Nation Constitution (of the 1300s), then enact it. (Based on The Great Law of Peace 1200s, a Tyendanaga Mohawk creation)
Yes. The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is controlled by one government: Israel. So, I see the struggle as one of making this situation equal and democratic.
Let’s see one thing clearly: without a two state solution Israel is finished. Prime Ministers Olmert and Barak as well as every “pro-peace” zionist group such as J Street & Peace Now have made this clear.
So, why would someone who supports the Palestinians advocate something which is in the words of Israelis, the only thing which will “save the Jewish state”? Sfard is a zionist and he supports this goal of “saving the 2 state solution” which is a euphemism for “saving the Jewish state”. So, by definition he is a racist, not a hero or an ally. His goal is a racist one.
It is up to the Palestinians to figure out how they make the one state they live in an equal one. It is not my job or my place to tell them how and when to do that. They are already conducting their anti-Apartheid and anti-Colonial struggle as they have been doing since at least the 1930′s, and they will continue to do so on their terms. But, with the birth rates what they are, Israel is finished in the medium to long term.
Sfard is fighting to save the “2 state solution” which is racist apartheid codified into a treaty which says the Palestinians accept a cluster of bantustans.
Correction: Michael Sfard is an attorney who is fighting for equal human rights for everyone regardless of where they live. He was a contributor and consultant on the South African HSRC- University of London SOAS study “Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid”. The organizations that he represents routinely call for criminal accountability for Israeli Security Forces and Israeli Civilians. link to yesh-din.org
In a typical case, where the major human rights organizations are the petitioners, they are actually represented in the Supreme Court by Michael Sfard. For example in HCJ 196/07 he represented:
1. Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights, Registered Association No. 58-0442622
2. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel
3. Gisha – Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement
4. The Public Committee against Torture in Israel
5. HaMoked – Center for the Defence of the Individual, founded by Dr. Lotte Saltzberger
6. Machsom Watch
7. Physicians for Human Rights
8. Bimkom – Planners for Planning Rights
He has the distinction of being one of the very few legal advocates, together with Limor Yehuda and Dan Yakir, who have been brave enough to actually charge the State of Israel with adopting policies and practices that constitute the very definition of apartheid in petitions and oral arguments presented before the Israeli High Court of Justice:
*HCJ 196/07 Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights et al. v. The Minister of Defense Amir Peretz et al. link to hamoked.org
*HCJ 2150/07, Ali Hussein Mahmoud Abu Safiyeh, Beit Sira Village Council Head
link to hamoked.org