#IDF /on the "topics document" [מסמך הצירים] was drafted in 1988 to regulate the release of sensitive documents from state archives [*]
The criteria according to which the governmental archives (the IDF Archive and the State Archive) decide whether to expose or conceal historical documentation - are not sufficiently transparent to the public. These criteria are also not fixed and have changed over the years.
"The Topics Document" [מסמך הצירים], alongside additional related historical documentation, was itself concealed and closed to review for many years. Only after three years of insistence with the State Archive was it finally transferred to the #Akevot ["footprints"] Institute.
So what are the sensitive issues, pertaining to IDF's image, Israel might like to conceal from scrutiny by researches?
One of those "sensitive topics" defined in the document is material that portrays the IDF as an occupying army devoid of moral foundations, which could harm its image as a moral army. Under this topic, eight concrete issues were listed, including:
Violent conduct against the Arab population and acts of cruelty (killing, murder not necessitated by combat, rape, looting, pillage)
Desecration of holy sites (desecration of churches, mosques and cemeteries)
Criminal acts (theft, looting of property, forgeries and destruction of evidence)
Atrocities committed against Jewish women (rape)
Atrocities committed by IDF divisions [in the War of Independence]: (Hula, Khisas, Eilaboun, Duwayma, etc.).
Another topic is aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself, Israel would like to avoid making public due to national security concerns:
Expulsion of Palestinians: Policy of retaliation against infiltrators; orders to harm infiltrators even in case of doubt
Establishing policy against return of Palestinians to their lands
Evacuation of Palestinian settlements and residents (Majdal, today "Ashkelon")
Violent conduct against prisoners contrary to the Geneva Convention (killing); not taking notice of white flags
Bombing of civilian facilities (bombing of hospitals to refugee camps Gaza, El Burj)
[*] Declassification of government papers according to the thirty years limit, by law, led to the emergence of the "New Historians" in Israel [Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris ...], who are known, collectively, to have challenged Israel's Zionist narrative of the Israel-Palestinian conflict
I've removed the hashtag Jewish Lobby from a previous post, since some find it offensive. As I explained, it's still commonly used in Hebrew (השדולה היהודית) these days, and no one finds it offensive, unless they choose to.
So when did efforts to mobilize USA Jewish lobbying power to advance Zionist aims start in fact?
In November 1900, the Ottoman authorities prohibited Jewish visitors to Palestine from staying for more than 3 months. In February 1901, Theodor Herzl wrote to American Zionists asking them to lobby the U.S. government and to protest this policy. He urged the president of the American Zionist Federation, Richard Gottheil, to initiate a debate in Congress about equal rights for American citizens to visit Palestine. He wanted Gottheil to pressure President William McKinley to influence the Turks.
His letter marks an early effort to mobilize American Jewish lobbying power to advance Zionist aims. Just 3 days later, the U.S. Secretary of State formally protested the Ottoman policy.
The letter is an important historical document showing Herzl's diplomatic efforts and the beginnings of the Jewish lobby in the USA, and it is now [2013] on display for the first time at an exhibition in Jerusalem.
[…] ISRAELISM uniquely explores how #Jewish attitudes towards #Israel are changing dramatically, with massive consequences for the region and for #Judaism itself.
[…] Zimmermann is part of a growing trend of young American Jews who are no longer satisfied with the one-sided narrative marketed to them in Jewish communities, Jewish schools, youth movements, and Birthright trips, but are starting to examine it critically, shaking off the automatic identification of #Judaism with loving Israel, and taking action against the occupation and for Palestinian rights.
[…] In debates with Palestinian students, Zimmermann recounts in the film, she felt again and again at a loss. "I remember there were Palestinian students who stood up and said: 'You cry over being silenced and marginalized, but my uncles and cousins couldn't sleep for weeks when bombs fell over their heads in #Gaza,'" she says. "I was thrown into these conversations where people used words I had never encountered: 'occupation,' 'settlements,' '#apartheid,' and 'ethnic cleansing.' I always thought I knew so much about Israel, but suddenly when they mentioned all these words, I didn't understand what they were talking about. I felt embarrassed that we couldn't respond to their claims. Do we not have any successful counterarguments besides 'double standards' and 'antisemitism'? This really troubled me."
#haaretz / Holocaust Researchers to Yad Vashem: Condemn the Public Discourse in Israel Calling for Genocide
[…] About 50 Holocaust researchers from Israel and abroad, whostudy the Holocaust and genocide, appealed today (Wednesday) to the chairman of Yad Vashem, Danny Dayan, demanding that he voice "an unambiguous moral opinion" condemning "the public discourse calling for destruction and the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza."
[…] The letter is signed by researchers from Tel Aviv University, Hebrew University, Haifa University, and Ben Gurion University, including Eva Illouz, Daniel Blatman, Omer Bartov, Rivka Brot, Amos Goldberg, Ariel Hirschfeld, Yehiam Weitz, Moshe Zimmerman, Moshe Zuckerman, Dalia Ofer, and Avraham Ronen.
The fact that Yad Vashem has been quite so far says everything.
50 Holocaust Researchers Ask Yad Vashem to Condemn Israeli Public Discourse Calling for Genocide in Gaza
The 'incitement to extermination' heard in the words of Israeli officials and personalities 'can reach the stage of genocide,' the researches say. They're calling on Yad Vashem to learn from the lessons of the Holocaust
#documentary / The Great Book Robbery: Chronicles of cultural destruction (2012)
This is the director-cut of the version broadcast by #AlJazeera English, and is 10 minutes longer.
“Farewell my library! Farewell mansion of wisdom, temple of philosophers, institute of science, council house of literature!” ~ Khalil al-Sakakini
The story of 70,000 Palestinian books that were looted by the newly created State of Israel in 1948. The film interweaves various storylines into a structure that is both dramatically compelling and emotionally unsettling. The interviews centre on eyewitness accounts and cultural critiques that place the book theft affair in a larger historical-cultural context; in the process, new light is shed on the Palestinian tragedy of 1948 and the moralistic-heroic Israeli narrative of the 1948 war is deconstructed.
57 minutes, documentary, 2007-2012, Hebrew, English, and Arabic with English subtitles
#documentary / "Palestine Is Still the Issue," a 2002 documentary by John Pilger, delves into the persistent challenges faced by the Palestinian people.
Returning to the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, Pilger explores the unchanged struggles of a desperate population living under illegal occupation.
Pilger has been a vocal critic of mainstream media and its role in shaping public opinion.
#domicide must be recognised as an international crime
The massive, arbitrary destruction of civilian housing in violent conflict should be recognised as a crime under international law, the UN’s independent housing rights expert told the General Assembly today [28 October 2022].
"I do believe that #Israel's actions amount to domicide, and may now very well constitute acts of genocide as well. The attacks by Israel have destroyed not just homes, but hospitals… historic streets, public buildings holding important records and archives… the main public library, all four of Gaza's universities, #Gaza's old city, the ancient port of Gaza, and many museums including the newly opened #Rafah Museum of Palestinian Heritage. This utter annihilation of Gaza as a place erases the past, present and future of the Palestinians."
Samantha Hill: "Für #Arendt war die politische Emanzipation der Bourgeoisie der Grundstein des modernen Nationalstaates, in dem die politischen Gesetze von den privaten Interessen der Geschäftsleute bestimmt wurden, die es für nötig befunden hatten, den Staatsapparat zu übernehmen, um das Militär für ihre kolonialen Unternehmungen einzusetzen. Diese Kooptation der Nation und ihre Umwandlung in einen Nationalstaat durch private Wirtschaftsinteressen war der Kern ihres Verständnisses. Und was sie betonte - und wofür sie kritisiert wurde - war das Argument, dass der Antisemitismus vom Nationalstaat politisch benutzt wurde, um seine politischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen zu fördern.
"Arendt hat dieses Argument nie aufgegeben. Tatsächlich griff sie es in ihrem umstrittensten Werk, Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), wieder auf, in dem sie Ben-Gurion vorwarf, einen "Schauprozess" zu veranstalten, um das Leiden des jüdischen Volkes auszunutzen, anstatt den wirklichen Verbrecher, Hitlers Cheflogistiker Adolf Eichmann, für seine Verbrechen zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen. Natürlich sei Eichmann antisemitisch gewesen, aber sein Hass auf das jüdische Volk sei nicht sein Hauptmotiv gewesen. Vielmehr sei es seine banale Hybris gewesen, die ihn dazu gebracht habe, in den Reihen des Dritten Reiches aufzusteigen. Das sei die Banalität des Bösen, und sie definierte die Banalität des Bösen als die Unfähigkeit, sich die Welt aus der Perspektive eines anderen vorzustellen."
While researching the work of the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC, or UNCPP) , came across this quote from Conciliation Commission member Mark F. Ethridge in Moris' "The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited" (2012):
[...] Mark Ethridge, the Southern Baptist appointed by Truman to the PCC, quickly understood that the developing impasse over the refugees was lethal to any possibility of peace. Ethridge thought Shertok’s attitude – that the refugees were ‘essentially unassimilable’ in Israel and should all be resettled in the Arab world – ‘inhuman’. Israel’s views in this context, he said, were ‘similar to those which I heard Hitler express in Germany in 1933. It [sic] might be described as anti-Semitism toward the Arabs.’ At the same time, he believed that ‘it might be wise in long run to resettle greater portion Arab refugees in neighbouring Arab states’.
While researching something the work of the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC, or UNCPP) , came across this quote from Conciliation Commission member Mark F. Ethridge in Moris' "The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited" (2012):
[...] Mark Ethridge, the Southern Baptist appointed by Truman to the PCC, quickly understood that the developing impasse over the refugees was lethal to any possibility of peace. Ethridge thought Shertok’s attitude – that the refugees were ‘essentially unassimilable’ in Israel and should all be resettled in the Arab world – ‘inhuman’. Israel’s views in this context, he said, were ‘similar to those which I heard Hitler express in Germany in 1933. It [sic] might be described as anti-Semitism toward the Arabs.’ At the same time, he believed that ‘it might be wise in long run to resettle greater portion Arab refugees in neighbouring Arab states’.
Behind the Campaign to Take Down Harvard’s Claudine Gay
Christopher Rufo, a right-wing activist and controversial commentator, has been
accused by some critics of being linked to the recent attacks on Harvard
President Claudine Gay. This accusation stems from Rufo's vocal opposition to
critical race theory (#CRT).
“racism against white people” 🙄
If the public lynching of a Black woman was a rite of passage into Aryan nation, Bill Ackman, a Jewish plutocrat, is now a full member, judging by the who’s-who of US neonazis congratulating him on his 4,000 post on X.
No amount of words can wash off the stench of bigotry though.
[…] We launched the Claudine Gay plagiarism story from the Right. The next step is to smuggle it into the media apparatus of the Left, legitimizing the narrative to center-left actors who have the power to topple her. Then squeeze.
“Where does Elise Stefanik get off lecturing anybody about antisemitism, when she’s the hugest supporter of Donald #Trump, who traffics in #antisemitism all the time?” […] She didn’t utter a peep of protest when he had Kanye West and Nick Fuentes over for dinner, […] Nick Fuentes, who doubts whether Oct. 7 even took place because he thinks it was some kind of suspicious propaganda move by the Israelis.”
#BI / Turns out Neri Oxman [who’s married to slimeball Bill Ackman] plagiarized from #Wikipedia, scholars, a textbook, and other sources without attribution …
[…] On Thursday, Business Insider identified four instances in which Oxman had lifted passages from other scholars' work in her doctoral dissertation, completed at MIT in 2010. Three of those were passages where she should have used quotation marks but did not, and one included language from another author without any citation. In a post on X, Oxman admitted the plagiarism, apologized, and said she would review the primary sources and request corrections as needed.
While researching the work of the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC, or UNCPP) , came across this quote from Conciliation Commission member Mark F. Ethridge in Moris' "The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited" (2012):
[...] Mark Ethridge, the Southern Baptist appointed by Truman to the PCC, quickly understood that the developing impasse over the refugees was lethal to any possibility of peace. Ethridge thought Shertok’s attitude – that the refugees were ‘essentially unassimilable’ in Israel and should all be resettled in the Arab world – ‘inhuman’. Israel’s views in this context, he said, were ‘similar to those which I heard Hitler express in Germany in 1933. It [sic] might be described as anti-Semitism toward the Arabs.’ At the same time, he believed that ‘it might be wise in long run to resettle greater portion Arab refugees in neighbouring Arab states’.
#reference / Zwi Migdal (or Zvi Migdal) was a Polish-Jewish-run, most profitable prostitution ring in South America and beyond
Apropos Jeffrey Epstein’s unsealed court documents , his real heritage is possibly Zwi Migdal - a Jewish global crime syndicate trafficking Jewish women as sex slaves.
#reference / Shlaim, Avi, Nadim Rouhana, Andre Zaaiman, and Na’eem Jeenah. 2012. “Pretending Democracy: Israel, an Ethnocratic State.”
My central thesis in this chapter is that the iron wall was a national strategy to which rival Zionist political camps subscribed during both the pre-independence and the post-independence periods. In other words, it will be argued that there was a remarkable convergence between main- stream Labour Zionism and right-wing Revisionist Zionism when it came to the Arab question and that this convergence persisted after 1948 under the Labor Party, Likud, and Kadima. To say this is not to deny the exist- ence of deep differences between the rival political camps. Clearly, there was always a European-style ideological divergence between the left and right wing on social, economic and political issues. Nor is it to deny that there were also significant differences when it came to the Arab question. Rather, the argument is that while left and right were divided on the territorial aims of Zionism, they were united on the strategy of the iron wall. Revisionist Zionism staked a claim to a Jewish state over the whole of the British mandate of Palestine, including Transjordan. Labour Zionists, on the other hand, accepted the principle of the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. At the risk of over-simplification, the two groups may therefore be described as territorial maximalists and territorial realists. Yet – and this is the crucial point – regardless of the extent of their territorial ambition, the two groups understood that, given the absolute Arab rejection of the whole idea, a Jewish state could be established only by force of arms.
#reference / Shlaim, Avi, Nadim Rouhana, Andre Zaaiman, and Na’eem Jeenah. 2012. “Pretending Democracy: Israel, an Ethnocratic State.”
The "Iron Wall" doctrine is a political strategy proposed by Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky in 1923. Knowing very well European Jewish presence in Palestine would never be accepted, It advocated for the establishment of a Jewish state as a so-called "iron wall". The doctrine argued that Zionists should prioritize building up their own military and economic power without making any concessions to Arab interests or seeking Arab cooperation.
[...] My central thesis in this chapter is that the iron wall was a national strategy to which rival Zionist political camps subscribed during both the pre-independence and the post-independence periods. In other words, it will be argued that there was a remarkable convergence between mainstream Labour Zionism and right-wing Revisionist Zionism when it came to the Arab question and that this convergence persisted after 1948 under the Labor Party, Likud, and Kadima. To say this is not to deny the existence of deep differences between the rival political camps. Clearly, there was always a European-style ideological divergence between the left and right wing on social, economic and political issues. Nor is it to deny that there were also significant differences when it came to the Arab question. Rather, the argument is that while left and right were divided on the territorial aims of Zionism, they were united on the strategy of the iron wall. Revisionist Zionism staked a claim to a Jewish state over the whole of the British mandate of Palestine, including Transjordan. Labour Zionists, on the other hand, accepted the principle of the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. At the risk of over-simplification, the two groups may therefore be described as territorial maximalists and territorial realists. Yet – and this is the crucial point – regardless of the extent of their territorial ambition, the two groups understood that, given the absolute Arab rejection of the whole idea, a Jewish state could be established only by force of arms.
Can you punish a person for a crime not yet committed? Israel's new #FutureCrime law passed 2nd and 3rd readings.
The Constitution Committee approved for second and third readings the bill that establishes one year imprisonment for a person who systematically consumes publications by #Hamas and #ISIS, which include words of praise, solidarity or encouragement for acts of terror. However, consumption of publications done sporadically, in good faith or for a legitimate purpose will not be prohibited consumption. During the discussions, the committee added to the test of systematic and ongoing consumption, a circumstance indicating identification with the terror organization.
#Israel [Dr. Meir Baruchin] / Because of criticism of the occupation I was suspected of intending to betray Israel
Dr. Baruchin is a civics and history teacher at a high school
----- [translation] -----
In 1915, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote:“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
For 35 years, I have been teaching civics and history in high schools. The pillar of my work is the conversation I have with my students. Many studies have been written about the importance of conversation in social life. Cicero, for example, wrote about "the good conversation." Human life is characterized, among other things, by a series of conversations that take place in institutions, places and circumstances and different contexts.
A democratic regime is one that allows for conversation between people who agree with each other or disagree in their views. Democratic discourse is one in which every participant feels that they can express themselves freely. No participant dominates the conversation, and there is no undermining of the legitimacy of any participant in the conversation because their arguments are not pleasing to the other participants.
An interesting conversation requires at least two opposing positions. Sometimes opposing positions arise from the direction of the students, but in many cases they share one position. Regarding the relationship between Jews and Palestinians, most students are used to hearing only one voice. They hear this voice at home, at school and in most media outlets. They do not know another voice. When I take upon myself the task of making the other voice heard (the Palestinian voice), there are students who initially feel uncomfortable because they are not used to hearing the other voice, but as time goes on they discover interest and curiosity. A debate develops that sharpens thought. Things are said that accompany the students for many years. By making the other voice heard, I seek to help students develop a broad perspective as they mature, form a perspective, and deal with complex situations.
The difficulty of conducting a democratic discourse in Israeli society did not arise on October 7, 2023, but it has strengthened significantly since then. With the outbreak of the war, I began posting on my Facebook page posts in which I criticized the harm to innocents in Gaza, especially children and women. Needless to say, the atrocities committed by Hamas people on Saturday, October 7, shook me deeply and still hurt me today. I explicitly expressed this in a post I uploaded on October 11.
Nevertheless, I received thousands of Nazi messages wishing me and my children death and disease, and I was portrayed as a terror supporter identifying with the horrors committed by Hamas members. On October 18 I was summoned for a hearing by my employer, the Petach Tikva Municipality, the city where I have been teaching since 2007. The next day I received a letter of dismissal. A few days later, the Ministry of Education suspended my teaching license, thus effectively preventing me from teaching in other schools.
Immediately afterward, I began the process of filing an injunction in the Labor Court against the Petach Tikva Municipality and the Ministry of Education. This process was halted on November 9. On that day, I was asked by phone to come in for questioning at the Jerusalem police station, on suspicion of incitement. In hindsight, it turned out that in order to investigate an Israeli citizen on suspicion of incitement, the police needed the approval of the prosecution. The police did request approval, but their request was denied.
Instead, it was decided to investigate me on two other counts: intent to betray the State of Israel (an offense punishable by up to ten years in prison), and intent to disrupt public order.
The moment I entered the police station, handcuffs and leg cuffs were placed on me, and my mobile phone was confiscated. Five detectives drove me to my home and for about two hours they turned the house upside down from top to bottom looking for inciting material. In addition to the mobile phone, two laptops and six USB drives were also confiscated. I was then taken back to the police station for the first interrogation, which lasted about four hours, and was divided into two parts:
In the first part, 14 posts I had uploaded to my Facebook page were presented to me, most of which were uploaded long before October 7, and were mainly critical of the occupation. For example, in November 2019, a shack in Gaza was bombed. The result was nine dead from the Al-Sawarkha family, including: Ramzi (45), his wives Maram (35) and Yosra (39), and their children: Waseem (13), Mohannad (12), Muaz (7) , Salim (3) and Firas (2). In the post I wrote at the time, I called the act - murder.
In another post, from May 2023, I simply recounted the story of Mohammed Khalil Daoud, a Gaza resident whose only son, Tamim Mohammed Daoud, was born in 2018. The day before, Tamim Mohammed went into stress due to an air strike. His heart could not withstand it and stopped beating. He died of heart failure. In the investigation I was asked what I meant in the posts, what I wanted to achieve, and how the content of the posts could be interpreted by readers. The second part of the investigation was not based on questions. But on rhetoric. The desired answers were planted in the body of the questions, so I was not given the opportunity to choose the answers I wanted.
At the end of the interrogation, I was taken to the "Russian Compound" detention center. I was defined as a "security detainee." I stayed in an isolated cell with no windows. Even my wristwatch was taken from me. The next day, Friday, November 10, a hearing was held in court. The hearing lasted a few minutes, and at the end the judge decided to extend my detention until Monday, November 13, at 12:00 noon.
Time crawled slowly. I was not given the option to bring a book into the detention cell. I wore the same clothes for four days. To keep myself busy, I did physical training every two hours. Detention center staff were prohibited from talking to me.
On Sunday, November 12, I was taken for a second interrogation, which also lasted about four hours. In this interrogation, too, an attempt was made to put words in my mouth. At one point, the interrogator accused me that my posts were like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." When I asked her if she ever got around to reading the protocols, she did not respond. The next day, a hearing was held in court, at the end of which I was released.
After I was released, I continued the process of filing an injunction in the Labor Court. At the hearing it turned out that my employer, the Petach Tikva Municipality, did not even have a single record on which they could base the allegations against me. Both at the hearing and in the ruling, which ordered my reinstatement and compensation, the judge noted the high professional level I maintain as a teacher, as evidenced by many letters of praise and thanks from students, parents and principals.
My dismissal and arrest were part of a political persecution of anyone expressing compassion for Palestinians in general and innocent Gaza residents in particular. On December 3, the police returned my confiscated belongings to me. When I turned on my mobile phone I found thousands of messages from the time period when the phone was not in my possession. One message in particular caught my attention. I read it many times. It was written by a former student who graduated 12th grade last summer.
Here is what she wrote:
"Hi Meir, I hope you remember me. I heard you were arrested. I really hope you're okay overall, and you continue to stay strong. It can't be easy. If it helps, I thought this would be a good time to tell you that in the few lessons I experienced with you in 12th grade... you were very meaningful to me.
"I want to thank you for what you taught me. I never had the chance to say it. Thank you for fighting for justice and equality. I think you are very brave, that you are loyal to your values and principles, no matter what. I'm trying to adopt this approach to my life, and it's not easy.
"Even when I didn't always agree with you, it was fascinating to hear you. You are an amazing teacher, and especially at a time like this the lessons I remember with you occupy me a lot... Just so you know, there is at least one student of yours who admires and appreciates you."