Is Israel justified in trying to break Breaking the Silence?

Connecting the dots is easy.

In Jerusalem: “The Jerusalem municipality is shutting down the Barbur Gallery, a nonprofit art space in the downtown area, because it planned to host an event by Breaking the Silence, an Israeli veterans’ anti-occupation group which collects testimonies from soldiers serving in the Palestinian territories.”

In Britain: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday asked his British counterpart Theresa May to halt funding for what he called nonprofit organizations that are “hostile to Israel.”

Also in Jerusalem: “The Foreign ministry plans to reprimand the Belgian Ambassador to Israel Olivier Belle over his country’s support for the non-governmental groups Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed the Foreign Ministry to do so, after discovering that Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel had met with representative of the left-wing group during his three-day visit to Israel.”

At the airport: “senior Jewish-American executive of the New Israel Fund, which helps fund many left-wing organizations working in Israel and the West Bank, was delayed for questioning by immigration officials upon arrival in Israel on Wednesday in what the group claims was for political reasons.”

Understanding and explaining their meaning is more difficult.

It is more difficult because all explanations are politically charged.

Certain people, the New Israel Fund has many such people, believe the government is involved in an attempt to silence legitimate voices. The event in which the NIF was involved, they say, was “a serious act aimed at intimidating a social activist because of her activities for Israel and Israeli society. The Israeli government… has been persecuting Israeli human rights activists for some time now. Now this policy is being directed at diaspora Jews as well.”

Other people believe that the government of Israel has finally mustered the courage to do something against organizations that take advantage of Israel’s relaxed approach and hurt its foreign relations and security. “The Barbur Gallery” – the gallery that hosted the Breaking the Silence event – “is funded from public money”, Minister Miri Regev reminded the Mayor of Jerusalem. It should not use these funds to “constitute a house for Breaking the Silence, an anti-Israel propaganda organization which spreads lies against the State of Israel and IDF fighters.”

Of course, every case is unique, and every case should be examined separately. A gallery that gets public funding might be subjected to rules different from those governing Israel’s foreign relations. Israel requesting the Brits to reexamine their funding of Israeli NGOs is different from Israel’s decision to reprimand Belgium for a meeting the Belgian PM had in Israel. The questioning of an NIF dignitary at the airport should be looked at carefully to determine whether this was intentional political harassment or maybe an intentional provocation by the visiting NIF staffer.

But overall, it is clear that Israel is upping the ante in its activity against some of the most politically critical organizations that operate here. Why? Two possible reasons come to mind – and these are not mutually exclusive.

One – it is politically beneficial for a right-wing coalition aiming to convince its voters that it is “doing something” about the most annoying elements within Israel’s society. The NGOs in question are the political strawman against which the coalition can unite.

Two – it is strategically important for Israel to dismantle a complicated infrastructure, run by irresponsible Israelis and funded by foreign governments, aiming to weaken Israel. This infrastructure of organizations is a crucial player in the BDS battle against Israel, as it gives Israel’s enemies the ammunition and the cover they covet as they strive to undercut Israel’s ability to defend itself and its interests.

For some Israelis and foreign observers, it’s easy to determine which of these considerations has been fueling the government’s actions. If they dislike the government, they’d go for the less flattering explanation. If they dislike the organizations, they’d go for the more flattering one. It is not as easy for the many Israelis who dislike both the government – or at least some of its more populist actions and rhetoric – and also dislike organizations that appeal to world public opinion in an attempt to turn the world against Israel.

Last year, in a survey I handled for JPPI, we found that a majority of Jewish Israelis believe that there is “too much freedom of expression” in Israel. This belief is widespread, and, as one can expect, grows stronger as we move from left to right and from secular to religious.

It is a disturbing belief, which is not quite characteristic: Jewish Israelis are known for being blunt, for being straight, for refusing to accept authority, for refusing to recognize hierarchy. But still, they feel that a line is being crossed by too many Israelis, and that the government, by letting all things pass, does not properly serve the interests of the country. We did not ask about this specifically in our survey, but it would not be unfounded to assume that Israelis’ unease with Israel having “too much freedom of expression” is mostly about the organizations that the government is currently trying to tame.

Is it a reasonable action by the government? I think it is, within limits. Asking the Brits not to fund opposition organizations in Israel is reasonable. Asking a Belgian visitor not to meet with Breaking the Silence during a formal visit is also reasonable. Asking an art gallery whose funding comes from my taxes not to engage in political activities is reasonable. Still, I’m a little concerned about all of these actions. I am concerned because I don’t trust that the government will identify the red line beyond which these actions become dangerous to Israel’s freedom of speech.