Trust and Rights When It Comes to Israel

At the end of last week, six Palestinian organizations were designated by Israel as “terrorist organizations.” The U.S. State Department did not seem pleased with the move, nor did several Israeli leftist ministers and European governments and even some Jewish groups. The organizations are human rights organizations—well, that’s their official title. Israel claims that the title is misleading and that these organizations engage in supporting acts of terrorism. When the U.S. asked for proof Israel said the U.S. already has this information. But since the two governments didn’t seem to be in sync, and the US kept insisting that it was not informed in advance about the coming move, it was decided that an envoy carrying more details will visit the US in the coming days.

What is this debate all about?

Many of Israel’s critics made it sound as if the debate is about human rights. “We believe respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and a strong civil society are critically important to responsible and responsive governance,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said. But that’s just not true: Israel announced that the groups in question are a front for terrorist activities. Of course, this doesn’t mean that they do not also deal with human rights issues. It does mean that in addition to these important and legitimate actions they engage in illegitimate actions. 

Now, there are three separate issues one must deal with. That is, except for an intra-Israeli political component: Defense Minister Benny Gantz irked his coalition partners by taking this decision without consulting them. 

The first one is a question of trust. Do you trust the information provided by Israel? Do you trust the information provided by these groups? The Israeli public, in general, is going to trust its security forces. Not all of it, but most of it. Note that the designation of these organizations as terrorist groups did not come from a fringe, or highly controversial minister. Gantz of Blue and White is known for having mainstream views and pragmatic approaches to almost all things. 

What about the rest of the world? Well, Europe funds most of these organizations one way or the other, and hardly troubles itself with verification of proper use of the money. Europe is skeptical of all Israeli security assertions and tends to automatically believe that Israel is the bad guy. Sadly, in this case the U.S. also seemed skeptical of Israel’s true motivation. 

Now, let’s assume that Israel has proof—that it can prove that some of these human rights organizations had meetings in which terrorist attacks were discussed, and efforts were made to recruit people to carry them out. What happens then?

Then we enter the debate of priorities and balance. On one side of this debate there are those who might say something such as “promoting human rights is important enough even if the price is toleration of some terror activities.” That’s the European stance even though they’d never express it in such way (in fact, many Israelis are going to suspect that the actual stance of some Europeans is principled support for Palestinian terrorism against Israel). On the other side of this debate there are those who might say that every hint of suspicion against a human rights organization is reason enough to shut it down. Admittedly, some rightwing Israelis would support such stance because they do not much care about Palestinian human rights.

Reasonable people are going to look for a middle ground in between these two extremes. Obviously, Israel must allow human rights organizations to serve the Palestinians. Obviously, Israel must not allow these organizations to use their access and funds as cover for terror activities.

Reasonable people are going to look for a middle ground in between these two extremes. Obviously, Israel must allow human rights organizations to serve the Palestinians. Obviously, Israel must not allow these organizations to use their access and funds as cover for terror activities. And this raises once more the question of trust: do you trust Israel’s security forces’ ability to both gather the information about these groups and strike the right balance as it ponders what measures should be enacted to deal with their extracurricular activities?

I do not always trust the official statements of Israel’s security forces. I know from experience that occasionally they would overstate their case, or overinterpret their information, as all offices in all countries do. Still, the question in this case is not about my or your belief in Israel’s version; it is about our belief in two versions: Israel’s version versus the version of the six human rights organizations. As every good Bayesian knows (Thomas Bayes introduced “Bayes Theorem” in the 1770s,) the way to assess a probability that a certain factual claim is valid begins with a credence: 

In your judgment, and based on your prior experience, what are the odds that Israel isn’t telling the truth? 

In your judgment, and based on your prior experience, what are the odds that the six organizations aren’t telling the truth? 

I think the answer is quite obvious and clear. Does this mean that Israel should be believed without doubt? No, it shouldn’t. Does this mean that Israel should have the benefit of the doubt? It certainly does. Hence, the perplexed response of the government and the public amid the U.S.’s distrust and disbelief. Hence the answer to the question of why Israelis prefer the Trump administration (who instinctively believed Israel) over the Biden administration (who instinctively doubts Israel).

Something I wrote in Hebrew

This week I dealt with a seeming budgetary paradox:

If education is so important, how can the Israeli public possibly want to cut it? True, the cut the public proposes in the poll is only a percentage. But the education budget is very large. A percentage point cut is a cut of billions of shekels … The answer to this question is found by cross-referencing the education budget question with another question we asked—about teachers’ salaries. The public wants to cut the education budget, but, and this is important but, to raise the salaries of teachers …. The public looks at the education system and sees an expensive, cumbersome and wasteful system … And on the other hand, the public is looking at teachers, and wants to raise their salaries.

A week’s numbers

This is not a big surprise, and yet, worthy of our attention. Just note: this isn’t about “Trump better than Biden”; it is about “Trump better than Biden for Israel.”

A reader’s response

Elli Hoffman responded to my article about Shimon Peres and sexual harassment:

“Israelis did not like Peres for most of his career. There was always something shifty about him. Still, he did great things for the country, and we should appreciate these things no matter what else he did.”

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.