A Scorpion? Rats!!

 

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.