I was both insulted and disappointed to see Nadav Tamir’s latest featured
blog “The Scorpion” in The Times of Israel’s blogs section.
Insulted because while I believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
is not above legitimate criticism, calling Netanyahu a “scorpion” is not only
an insult to those who voted for him or support him but also an insult to those
who believe that in a democracy there should be a modicum of respect shown
towards the symbols of the country. There is no real difference between calling
Netanyahu a “traitor” and a “scorpion”. The first one you shoot, and the second
one you crush with your boot.
I was not disappointed that Tamir resorted to name-calling. Just as a rat
creeping out of the sewage searching for food will leave droppings of muck and
malaise in human habitation, so will there always be those who will post their
lies and slanders in a blog if given the opportunity. That is the nature of
rats and, unfortunately, also of some people. The sages had an expression for
that "לאו עכברא גנב אלא חורא גנב
", or to paraphrase, not the rat is responsible for the theft, but rather
the hole is to blame. Here the “hole” is the Blogs Section and what I find
disappointing was the decision to give Tamir’s blog status as a featured blog.
On any given day there can be tens of blogs posted to the Times of
Israel’s blogs section. The more important ones the editors choose to get
featured and are thus granted greater circulation. It is an editorial statement
of sorts and in this case, I believe that Tamir overstepped the boundaries to
incite and was rewarded for it. Would the same editors or editor feature a blog
calling the retired Chief Justice of Israel’s High Court a “hedgehog” or the
writers of the satire program “Eretz Nehaderet” a “pack of hyenas”?
Somehow, I doubt it. Yet calling the democratically elected leader of Israel a
“scorpion” is not only fine. It is approved.
I have qualms about comparing Tamir to a rat. Although I can cling to the
definition that a “rat” is an informer and can be legitimately used in a
sentence such as “Since 2016, T'ruah has filed a series of complaints with
ratted out to the IRS about the Central Fund of Israel”, or “Breaking the
Silence regular rats out on Israeli soldiers to CNN and NPR”, I still find the
usage a bit distasteful. I can have legitimate concerns about Israel-based NGOs
largely funded by anti-Israel or even anti-Jewish sources used to slander
Israel in the USA or Europe. Still, I prefer using facts and reasoned language
to voice them. Besides, calling other Jews “rats” has emotional baggage and can
be misconstrued to mean something sinister.
In general, calling one’s opponents a virus, cancer, or a type of pest
through a zoomorphism (using an animal metaphor) is less than insightful and
more about incitement. So, I will leave the name-calling behind and my
sincere apologies to any members of the Rattus family who may have taken
offense.
This leaves us with Tamir’s rambling, largely incoherent, and spurious
claims, of which I would deal with just two: The Red Cross and Qatar.
As for the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the ICRC, I
suggest referring to UNWATCH
and their report on the ICRC. The IRCR, like any number of
international organizations, has a deep-seated bias against Israel and the
Jewish People, which is the result of having numerous members that are
themselves anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. For decades the ICRC denied recognition
to the Israeli Magen David Adom basically on the pretense that Israel was
unwilling to use the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol that other countries use.
(The Third
Protocol from 2005, allows the use of the “Red Crystal” symbol in conjunction with the
Magen David Adom, but does not allow the Magen David Adom symbol by itself to
be used outside the “recognized national borders of Israel” .) In short, the
ICRC is itself institutionally biased against Israel.
The claim that the Red Cross is “endangering” their personnel to aid
Israeli hostages is pure fiction. Officially, the ICRC has not even issued an
official statement condemning Hamas for the taking of civilian hostages, the
use of hospitals and ambulances for military purposes nor even the organized
use of rape against Israelis. Where and how is the ICRC endangering themselves
for Israelis? As to being without leverage to criticize Hamas because it would
endanger their “humanitarian tasks”, somehow there are no constraints when it
comes to criticizing Israel. The ICRC could threaten Hamas that they would
leave Gaza if the hostages were not returned, or minimally threaten to withdraw
personnel if they were physically harmed by Hamas. The ICRC has all the leverage
it needs but lacks the willpower to use it and a moral compass to guide it.
As for Qatar and its support of Hamas with Israeli approval, that is a
much more complicated issue that needs some background. Fortunately, there is a
fair amount of background on when Qatar started funding Hamas (in 2007,
immediately after Hamas deposed the PA rule after the Palestinian elections),
and when cash transfers through Israel commenced (in 2014 after Mohamed Morsi
was deposed in the coup that brought Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to power in Egypt).
The Times of Israel reported on the subject several times [“Qatar
gave over $1.1 billion to Gaza Strip from 2012-18, ministers told” - on
February 11, 2019] or [“Qatar
said threatening to end aid to Gaza in bid to press Israel on annexation” – on June 24,
2020]. Not much is said of how the Obama administration was involved in
negotiating the agreement nor whether the Obama administration pressured Israel
into acquiescing to the transfers. [“Obama to
host emir of Qatar for talks on Mideast stability” – on February 15,
2015]. The United States has a major air base in Doha in Qatar and has forged
close ties with the oil emirate.
Curiously, Tamir somehow omits any mention of the report “Israel
and Qatar: Relations Nurtured by the Palestinian Issue ", Published
as part of the publication series: Israel's Relations with Arab Countries: The
Unfulfilled Potential Dr. Michal Yaari, Mitvim, The Israeli Institute for
Regional Policies, March 2020” which he surely must be familiar with. The
report is relatively positive about Qatar-Israeli relations, especially in the
context of Qatar participating in the reconstruction of Gaza after Israel’s
last ground incursion into Gaza in 2014.
In summing up, there is a long road ahead to official diplomatic ties
between Israel and Qatar, But, this does not negate the change that is taking
place in their relations. Within several years, Israel and Qatar have turned
from being hostile states on two sides of the divide, to strategic partners in
shaping the reality in Gaza. That does not mean Qatar has shed its historic
ties with Israel’s enemies, but that its view of the Palestinian issue no
longer rests on binary concepts of aggressor and victim; rather on recognition
that responsibility for the problems lies with many different parties. As for
the Israeli leadership, it will likely continue to harbor suspicions about
Qatar in the coming years. Nonetheless, as opposed to the past, it no longer
precludes links with Qatar but simply defines their borders.
This could be compared to the much more stark analysis by the Jerusalem
Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS) ( Dr.
Udi Levi, March 3, 2020) [ the JISS is known as a “rightwing” think tank]
Israel should reconsider the wisdom of its current approach to Qatar and
the Gaza Strip. Will Israel, one of the main victims of radical Islamist
terrorism, and which proclaims from every possible platform its commitment to
the war on terror, be the country to legitimize one of the greatest financers
of global terrorism?
Israel also needs to give serious consideration to the following
additional question. What are the implications of the payments to Hamas on
Israel’s confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon? The pressures on
Hezbollah grow every day, from the US government and other actors. What if
Hezbollah seeks a similar arrangement of quiet with Israel in exchange for
cash? How would Israel respond then? Ask the Qataris to hush Hezbollah with
money?
Seemingly, those opposing Netanyahu who are referencing the “Qatari
suitcases” are being less than straightforward, most likely in the knowledge
that few will deeply examine the causes and the history of them. The same
people who may have applauded Yair Lapid’s recent treaty with Lebanon
concerning the prospective gas fields on the Lebanon-Israel maritime border, or
the increase of worker permits for Gazans working in Israel, or called for
increasing the supply of concrete and other goods in Gaza all worked from the
same premise: that Israel’s concessions to Hamas and Hezbollah would
incentivize quiet and help avoid conflict. The “Qatari suitcases” were
symptomatic of a widely held consensus shared by USA officials, the EU, the
military, and the civilian leadership under Prime Ministers Netanyahu, Bennet,
and Lapid (where Benny Ganz was the Minister of Defense in all three
governments) that quiet could be bought.
As for Netanyahu, he has endured unremitting hostility from the Left
since the Oslo Accords thirty years ago. He certainly is less than perfect, and
in any given week there can be more than a few blogs submitted ridiculing or
criticizing his conduct. Undoubtedly there will also be some blogs that
will use disrespectful or inciteful language against Netanyahu and/or his
coalition partners. That will leave plenty of room for editorial discretion in
deciding what gets published and how. And that can be either a flaw or a
feature.
