It now appears that the fire at the offices of B’Tselem – an Israeli leftist human rights group – was the result of a short circuit, not of deliberate arson. Sunday’s fire caused great damage to the organization’s Jerusalem office. Luckily, no one was seriously hurt.
Although this wasn’t a case of arson, no one would be surprised, or shocked, if it turned out the offices were indeed torched by someone to whom the clear line separating between debate, even fierce debate, and the use of violence is not clear.
B’Tselem is an organization that many Israelis dislike, and they have reasons to dislike it. Last week, its methodologies and practices were put under a microscope following a TV expose by TV documentary show Uvda. In this show, reporter Omri Assenheim showed “key activists in two of Israel’s best-known left wing NGOs” that were “caught on camera admitting that they entrapped Palestinians interested in selling land to Israelis and then reported them to the Palestinian Authority, despite knowing that these Palestinians faced near-certain torture or murder at the hands of the PA’s secret police.”
The show ignited anger. Some people were angry for the right reasons: it is quite strange for activists of human rights organizations – no matter their politics vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to hand over people to an authority that will torture and execute them. Some were angry for the wrong reasons: they claimed that by airing this documentary, reporter Assenhaim and anchorwoman Ilana Dayan joined a McCarthyist campaign against leftist organizations. “The right has declared a despicable war against them. Now Uvda has joined them,” wrote dean of all leftist causes Gideon Levy of Haaretz.
Uvda is a highly respected TV program, and its journalists will withstand the firestorm that they ignited. Some of them were surprised by the fact that left wing activists and columnists attacked them for this latest expose. But really, there is no reason for much surprise. Israel’s debate concerning many issues has become so polarized, so politicalized, that many of the people engaged with it can no longer see right from wrong – a mentality of with-us or against-us has taken over and is blinding the debaters and making the debate itself redundant.
It is troubling that even things as simple as these need to be stated clearly and unequivocally, but it is wrong to give the names of Palestinian sellers to the Palestinian Authority – even for those opposing the settlers and their methods of buying land. It is wrong to act violently against members of a human rights organization, even if the organization is engaged in shady activities and is damaging to Israel.
* * *
Why do human rights activists turn to such immoral methods? Many of them do it because of anger and because of fear. They are angry at a country that refuses to accept their political recipe for Israel. They fear that their activity of many years will be in vain as the country moves in a direction they disagree with.
The angrier they become, the more apprehensive they become – the more they lose their inhibitions. Thus they turn to immoral methods, they turn to other countries to look for the support they cannot get among Israelis, and they turn to language that makes Israel a caricature – a fascist state, an apartheid state, a villain among nations. They say that they act out of love of Israel – and some of them certainly do – but with time and frustration some are made hateful. And hate makes them lose the ability to separate right from wrong, acceptable from unacceptable, useful from not-useful.
Why do some of the opponents of human rights organizations turn to such immoral methods (the B’Tselem office was not deliberately torched – but we do know about other incidents, and about the many threats that these organizations are subjected to)? Many of them also do it because of anger and because of fear. They are angry at organizations that refuse to accept the democratic verdict in a democratic country (of course, human rights organizations would rightly point out that the Israeli occupation is inherently undemocratic). They are angry because of the smearing, because of the campaign against Israel abroad, because of the harsh language, and because of the caricatures. And they are also fearful. They are fearful because they see a world turning against Israel, assisted by incriminating evidence some of which is gathered by these organizations.
The angrier they become, the more apprehensive they become – the more they lose their inhibitions. Thus, they turn to threats, and sometimes to violence. They turn to inciting language against human rights organizations. They say that they act out of love of Israel – and some of them certainly do – but with time and frustration, some take actions that hurt Israel badly. Hurt its vibrant democracy by adding a dark streak of intimidation to it. Hurt its image in the world.
* * *
Israel needs to get a grip on its debate and atmosphere.
Or else.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.