Poll: More than half of Jewish Israelis support gagging human rights groups

[Jefferson23]

More than half of Jewish Israelis think human rights organizations that expose immoral behavior by Israel should not be allowed to operate freely, and think there is too much freedom of expression here, a recent survey found.

The survey, commissioned by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, will be presented Wednesday at a conference on the limits of freedom of expression.

The pollsters surveyed 500 Jewish Israelis who can be considered a representative sample of the adult Jewish population.

They found that 57.6 percent of the respondents agreed that human rights organizations that expose immoral conduct by Israel should not be allowed to operate freely.

Slightly more than half agreed that "there is too much freedom of expression" in Israel.

The poll also found that most of the respondents favor punishing Israeli citizens who support sanctioning or boycotting the country, and support punishing journalists who report news that reflects badly on the actions of the defense establishment.

remainder: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1165910.html

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Jeez. This ends up in the I/P dungeon? That's nuts.

Like none of that stuff is going to have any impact on the US or anything. Can't people, both here and there, see the incredibly dangerous historical parallels? (And there are many, not just the obvious one.) With us doing the Arizona thing and Israelis ready to jail their dissidents, I get kinda nervous.

[cqo_000]

9. Why belittle this forum?

[Jackpine Radical]

16. I'm not belittling the forum. However, it does get a lot less traffic

than a lot of other places, and you can't rec it for the Greatest page. I didn't even notice what forum it was in until I tried to rec it.

[IndianaGreen]

45. because it is crap...

[Jefferson23]

17. This thread didn't end up here, I posted it in this forum.

And I agree, gagging makes me more than a little uncomfortable. This poll is a sad commentary on the impact
of the continued occupation, and certainly, what has happened in Arizona is a disgrace. But we do have the majority
of Americans opposed to it....thankfully.

[aquart]

2. Gee, wonder why they feel under siege.

Because those are wartime restrictions. Whatever could make them feel that they are at war and their very survival is at stake?

Hmmm. What could it be? Just their imagination, I'm sure.

[Chulanowa]

3. I'm sure Germany said the same thing, once upon a time

Even if the "we're at war!" were viable, your statement makes no goddamned sense. Being at war calls ofr gagging of human rights agencies?

So you figure the US should blindfold the Red Cross and other organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seymor Hersh should be jailed for breaking the My Lai story? The ACLU should be barred from bringing cases involving police or counterterrorism operations to court?

Or is this gagging our critics thing only acceptable if you're a jew and the critics are pointing out that you're conducting human rights violations against Arabs?

[shira]

11. click on the link in post #10 below and you'll get an idea why this is happening

[LeftishBrit]

12. No justification for supporting gagging

I consider that, for example, right-libertarian organizations that campaign against public health care or welfare provision are pernicious and dishonest; but that doesn't mean that they should be gagged.

This all sounds very much like American right-wing arguments a few years that people shouldn't criticize the president during a time of war, etc.

[shira]

13. Then what do you propose to do about the bias and hostility of groups like HRW towards Israel?

Israel already has dozens of HR organizations in its own country and does not need HRW or the UNHRC to pontificate against them like David Duke.

So what should Israel do with HRW, for example? Let HRW act as Iran's mouthpiece, take it, and endure deligitimization and demonization posing as sincere concern for HR's?

[LeftishBrit]

15. If they feel unfairly treated, argue with them, and present their case.

Not gag them.

Do you think that they should prohibit IsraelNationalNews from being published? Or that those in other countries should make the link unobtainable to their own people.

Do you think that Britain should ban the Daily Mail and the Sun, which do a lot of harm, and lie half the time - but their suppression would do more harm than good?

Your arguments here remind me a bit of those who think that AIPAC should be banned/suppressed/forced to register as a foreign organization.

There are lots of organizations that *I* think are poisonous, but that doesn't mean that they should all be banned.

P.S. Iran would be VERY surprised at hearing HRW described as their 'mouthpiece'! Come to think of it, the banning of HRW would be one of the few things on which the Israeli and Iranian Right would fully agree.

[shira]

19. They do that to no avail and the deligitimization / demonization only continues

Israeli report contradicting Goldstone ignored
http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/israeli-report-contradicting-goldstone-ignored

Whether it's HRW or the Goldstone Report, the organizations responsible for slandering Israelis claim that there never exists any substantive criticism of their reports, that it's all some "Rightwing" conspiracy, and the beat rolls on.

As to HRW or the UNHRC being an "Iranian mouthpiece", look no further than how Hamas reacted to the Goldstone Report. They didn't like what was written about themselves but do you really think for a minute that they have a problem with the way Israel was misrepresented and slandered? They went ballistic once Abbas ruled to delay the vote on the Goldstone Report in the UN for another 6-9 months.

I'm against gagging free speech as anyone else but I think that if this threat brings enough publicity to get others aware of what's going on, it may be a good idea. If Israel does gag HRW for example, the right people will start looking for real answers like here....

http://www.tnr.com/article/minority-report-2

...and maybe things will start to change for the better and HRW will be forced to make changes.

The main issue is that HRW, the UNHRC, etc. do not get carte blanche to attack Israel by trying to deligitimize it, and thereby aiding Hamas, Hezbollah, etc..(Iranian backed militias) and ergo, thereby being a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime.

If anyone has a problem with Israel banning HRW, then Israel can always point to all the HR organizations within Israel to keep everyone straight. If that's not enough, screw them.

[LeftishBrit]

25. So that justifies restricting freedom and democracy for Israeli citizens?

The survey wasn't even just about gagging human rights organizations, but about *restricting the right of Israeli citizens to publicly express negative opinions about Israel*.

Yes, countries SHOULD sit back and permit their citizens to demonize them!!! (And mine gets demonized quite a lot.) They can protest and debate about it, but not restrict people's right of speech.

9-11 did not justify Bush's restrictions on civil liberties; neither do the rocket attacks justify gagging Israeli citizens. Far less does 'demonization' justify such restrictions.

And demonization occurs on both sides of the political spectrum in Israel. What about those who accuse liberal Jews of having the 'Jew flu', or call Peace Now supporters 'a virus', or recommend kicking out Israeli Arabs? While I would prefer if such views were not represented in the Cabinet, they still come under the right of free speech for citizens.

Of course, people's answers to a survey do not equal actually putting such practices into law; and surveys in many countries would uncover some rather shocking attitudes. Israel isn't unique, nor does the survey mean that the 'gagging' will be actually practiced. E.g. in one survey 50%
of Brits supported 'voluntary' repatriation of immigrants; yet this is unlikely to become part of law. But none of this *justifies* the suggested restrictions on citizen's freedom of speech!

[shira]

29. No, see #28

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. You'll learn the excuses, but not the reasons.

The *reason* this is happening is that Israel knows that the reality of many of its actions becoming public knowledge would be bad for it, and wants to cover up as much as it can get away with.

[shira]

27. You don't think what HRW has done is wrong, see post #10, do you?

[LeftishBrit]

36. I think they have been *accused* of doing things that are wrong.

The allegations may be true, false or partly true.

Human rights organizations get demonized from all sides, and there is lots of wolf-crying, and sometimes a real wolf exists (organizations in general are usually far from perfect) and is ignored because of all the wolf-crying. I must admit that I tend to be more sceptical of other allegations about human rights groups because of the frequently-repeated and demonstrably false allegations that they *only* or *mainly* focus on Israel, and ignore other countries such as Iran. ( But of course allegations are sometimes true. Opinion-pieces don't prove their truth, however, any more than opinion-pieces prove the truth of allegations about Israel.

[shira]

39. Accused? The evidence against HRW and the UNHRC is extremely strong.

And in comparison to the amount of focus on Israel, what goes on elsewhere in the mideast WRT countless millions of more lives, is "virtually" (not totally) ignored by HRW and the UNHRC.

It's a real problem and there's no excuse for it.

[LeftishBrit]

7. That was the justification for the Patriot Act. And similar legislation elsewhere.

Israel is hardly uniquely bad in this respect; but it's wrong wherever it happens.

[Chulanowa]

8. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. When you declare war, you find yourself at war...

Israel is conducting an (illegal) military occupation of another people; of *course* it's at war. That's not an argument in its defence.

And the idea that Israel's survival is at stake is ludicrous - it's a useful propaganda point and a way for Israel's apologists to soothe their consciences, nothing more. Israel is by far the most powerful nation in the ME, and it has the carte blanche backing of the US. The survival of the Palestinians is at stake; that of Israel is a foregone conclusion.

Saying "we are an war" is not a justification for restricting the rights of those arguing that you should end that war...

[Ken Burch]

43. self-delete

dupe post.

[Ken Burch]

44. Its the abuses these groups speak out against that put Israelis in danger

Not the actions of the groups in pointing them out.

Israel would be in a far stronger position if it LISTENED to those who defend TRUE Zionist and Israeli values and chose to stopp the collective punishment of Palestinians. Israel was meant to be a state where human rights were NEVER compromised. That was what the "light among the nations" idea(a phrase the Israeli government no longer has any right to use)was about.

The human rights community in Israel are the only real Israelis.

The human rights abuses and the collective punishment only CAUSE what the Israelis call "terrorism".

Armed struggle only happens when people feel there's no other way.

[Me.]

4. What Has Happened To Them?

They are becoming that which they used to fear

[Chulanowa]

6. Israel happened to them

You take a group of people and divide them into groups X and Y. You then give group Y authority over all decisions made, even the ones that only affect group X. Group X is then barred from the decision making process. Even in the case of trivial decisions, the response from group X will be to become resistant, sullen, and depressed. Group Y will use this situation to justify their status over group X. Group Y will never offer to share power, because they've got it good and sharing could only lessen their status. Allowed to progress, Group Y becomes abusive and group X will become aggressively resistant, suicidally depressed, or both.

Jane Elliot got these results in a single day. The Stanford Prisoner experiment got even harsher results in only six days.

Israel's experiment involves millions of people and has been running since 1948.

We can look to former Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Tibet, and many other countries and regions and see the same pattern; it's certainly not just Israel.

In Israel case (and Iraq's and Rwanda's and Sudan's!), it proves that people presented with absolute authority over other people will often become abusive, violent, close-minded, and irrationally bigoted about the "other" group, even if the group in power has suffered similarly.

[cali]

18. then how come polls have reflected the same shit here?

People are stupid everywhere.

[shira]

20. Defamation and slander from HR groups should be limited just as hate speech from Kahanists

...should be similarly limited.

Depends on how much 'freedom of speech' you're willing to tolerate.

Take David Duke for example. Just how much free speech is he entitled to?

One standard for all, right?

[LeftishBrit]

26. David Duke gets plenty of freedom of speech, as a matter of fact!

And who decides what is 'demonization and slander'? The Israeli government? I think it is a VERY dangerous situation for a government to have the right to punish others for slandering it! That happens in undemocratic countries. Democracies that have such laws are thereby compromised as democracies. The existence of such laws in Turkey is the main reason why I would not currently support their entry into the EU.

Kahanists should not have the right to actually incite to murder Arabs or left-wing Jews; however, the parallel is more that right-wingers *should* have the right to slander Rabin and call Olmert a traitor for making too many concessions for peace - as many do. I consider such statements very nasty and disgusting; but I don't thereby recommend that Israel should model itself on a Soviet bloc country, or even America during the McCarthy era.

[shira]

28. David Duke and the Kahanists are marginalized, not gagged, and HRW deserves the same fate

[LeftishBrit]

30. But this isn't what the poll was about

'They found that 57.6 percent of the respondents agreed that human rights organizations that expose immoral conduct by Israel should *not be allowed to operate freely*.

The poll also found that most of the respondents favor *punishing* Israeli citizens who support sanctioning or boycotting the country, and support *punishing* journalists who report news that reflects badly on the actions of the defense establishment. '

This is about restrictions and punishment, not 'marginalization'.

Of course, it's possible that there was bias in the sampling, or in the way that the questions were asked - but in any case, it is about *banning*, not 'marginalizing'.

(I also think that criticisms of a country, even unjustifiable ones, are not the same as targeting minority groups within one's country, and that therefore the Duke/Kahane analogy does not apply - the analogy, even for 'demonizing' criticisms, would be more with right-wingers treating Iran - or during the Cold War Russia or America - as a bogeynation. But that is not the main point here.)

[shira]

31. I agree with you that gagging free speech is wrong but...

...what you propose (about countering reports with refutations and criticisms) is ineffective. Hate and incitement (posing as free speech) against Jews and the State of Israel continues and there's little to nothing that can be done about it.

[LeftishBrit]

37. Arguing with opponents is often less effective than punching them or putting them in prison...

quite generally speaking. Nevertheless, choosing the first over the others is what civilized behaviour and democracy are all about.

[safeinOhio]

5. What ever happened to the great

Liberal Jewish community? Are they all turning into fundamentalist settlers?

[LeftishBrit]

14. No. But fundie settlers and plain old RW-ers have increased in number

And constant low-level and sometimes more intense war has increased fear and prejudice - which perpetuates the war (on both sides).

[bemildred]

42. And that trend has been going on for a long time now.

And it is a very pernicious trend. The extremists grow and grow more extreme, and change is impossible until it becomes inevitable.

[shira]

10. Minority Report

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311639

[bemildred]

23. So human rights groups are anti-semites?

Or what? How can you have "too much freedom of expression"? Doesn't that really mean you want to shut people up because you are losing the argument with them on the merits?

[Jefferson23]

24. Yes, and I think it's easier to continue to support what your government

is doing if you shut up human rights groups. Each day they have to look in the mirror like everybody else, maybe this would make that easier too.

[shira]

32. Looks like it's easier to ignore the corruption within HRW and the UNHRC while pretending

their reports are legitimate and cannot be countered substantively. Best to portray supporters of Israel as trying to defend the indefensible who have no justification for their 'faux' outrage.

Minority Report
Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel.
http://www.tnr.com/article/minority-report-2

Israeli report contradicting Goldstone ignored
http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/israeli-report-contradicting-goldstone-ignored

[bemildred]

33. Police prepare to confront Olmert

Investigators from the National Fraud Unit continued on Tuesday with intensive preparations to confront former prime minister Ehud Olmert over suspicions he received bribes from businessmen backing the Holyland real estate development in south Jerusalem.

In the meantime, two key suspects in the investigation, ex-Bank Hapoalim chairman Dan Dankner and Olmert’s former aide of 30 years, Shula Zaken, were brought to the National Fraud Unit’s headquarters in Lod for questioning.

Zaken continued to deny suspicions against her that she acted as the “main pipeline” – as described by a police representative in court during her remand hearing on Monday evening – for bribes destined for Olmert when the latter was Jerusalem mayor and minister of industry, trade and labor. Zaken is also suspected of pocketing a portion of the bribes herself.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174130

Yep, let's root out all that corruption wherever we find it ...

[shira]

34. "Hey, look over there b/c this somehow proves there's nothing wrong with HRW and the UNHRC". (nt)

[bemildred]

35. I learn from the master. nt

[shira]

38. Olmert should get what he deserves for his corruption - Do you think HRW and the UNHRC deserve it?

[bemildred]

40. I think they are on the same footing as anyone else, Olmert, Israel, you name it.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of either, so I'm not going to pick up a cudgel to defend them, but one should consider what they have to say based on the merits, not based on the source.

[Jefferson23]

41. There is no justification for the continued occupation, there is NOTHING

legitimate about it. So if Israel wants to ban these reports, go ahead, the majority of the world will still be well aware of their
indefensible policies. The outrage did not rise primarily from the human rights groups, look at the policies and OCL to find the root cause of late.

You think because the DOJ here in the U.S. hasn't gone after Bush, that Americans are not aware of their crimes? Very foolish premise.