Civil liberties even when it is not easy

From 'Aftonbladet' to Neve Gordon

It's easy to support freedom of the press and freedom of speech as abstract principles. But what if a Swedish newspaper publishes false stories that could inspire violence against Jews? What if a tenured Israeli academic calls on the world to boycott his country?

Last week, Donald Boström "reported" in the mass-circulation Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet that the IDF murders young Palestinian Arabs to enable the harvesting of their organs for transplanting. On Sunday, the paper said it had sent two other journalists, Oisin Cantwell and Urban Andersson, to the West Bank, where Palestinians confirmed Boström's original expose.

If Israelis have overreacted to this mendacious twaddle, it's because anti-Semitic blood libels have had deadly consequences for our people ever since Greek pagans first accused ancient Jews of kidnapping foreigners for sacrificial purposes. Christians picked up the theme in the Middle Ages, accusing Jews of drinking the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes.

In 1236, Germanic Christians "modified" the vilification by claiming that the Jews used the blood of Christian boys for medicinal purposes. And the Nazis brought the defamation into the 20th century via Der Stuermer.

Now Aftonbladet has the distinction of keeping the lie alive in 21st-century Europe.

Had the Swedish Foreign Ministry backed the condemnation of Boström's article by Elisabet Borsin Bonnier, Sweden's ambassador in Tel Aviv - instead of reprimanding her - the matter would have ended there. Stockholm could have announced that in a democracy, the government does not muzzle newspapers; but that the blood libel does not reflect the views of the Swedish people or government. Israel did not ask for anything more.

Instead, while Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt opted to pontificate about the Swedish constitution and freedom of speech, he could not bring himself to dissociate from the substance of the defamatory article.

STILL, perhaps the Israeli reaction has been over the top. While Aftonbladet was exposing the Jews for snatching Arab body parts, Britain's Sun newspaper revealed yesterday that space aliens may be in the process of invading that island nation. Indeed, over the weekend, the Scarborough Evening News reported fresh UFO sightings over Yorkshire.

Meanwhile, in America, the Weekly World News covered the discovery of the secret burial ground of Bigfoot. Only recently, the paper had revealed that the head of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia would soon announce the location of the Ark of the Covenant, noting that some experts saw a link between UFOs and the Ark.

Perhaps Aftonbladet will now investigate the connection between other reports circulating on the Web of alien sex experiments on earthlings and the missing Palestinian organs. Or does the paper take itself too seriously to pursue such a line of inquiry?

Aftonbladet can take succor from the support it received Sunday from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The terror group recalled that as early as the 1980s, the IDF had been suspected of stealing organs from Gazan children who had been taken to Israeli hospitals - ostensibly for treatment.

Free-world newspapers, in both hard copy and electronic form, can write basically anything they want, subject to self-regulation and national libel laws. So it should be.

The bylaws of the Swedish Journalists Association call on members not to lie. Sweden's press ombudsman and its press council are charged with monitoring and promoting good journalistic practice. Let them judge whether Aftonbladet has violated the ethical standards of Swedish journalism.

WE FEEL much the same way about Neve Gordon's op-ed in The Los Angeles Times last week, in which the Ben-Gurion University political science instructor called for boycott, divestment and sanctions against our country.

If the op-ed editors of the paper want to maintain their practice of carrying two pieces critical of Israel for every pro-Israel comment, that is their prerogative.

But it would be an egregious mistake - playing straight into Gordon's hands - for donors to punish his Zionist university in Beersheba for upholding freedom of expression in connection with Gordon's destructive views by withholding their support.

The most apt response would be for contributors to endow a chair in Zionist studies in Gordon's department, and for the university to fill it with a Zionist scholar of world renown.

Maybe there are just too many generals in Israeli politics

Ya'alon's misstep


Here's a prediction: When Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu travels to London and Berlin next week, Vice-Premier Moshe Ya'alon won't be standing in for him as acting premier. That's because Ya'alon has gone off the reservation.

As guest of honor earlier this week at a meeting of the Jewish Leadership Movement, a stridently right-wing Likud caucus led by Moshe Feiglin, Ya'alon said the wrong things, in the wrong way, in the wrong place.

In arguing that Jews have a right to live anywhere in Judea and Samaria, Ya'alon was articulating a fairly conventional Israeli position. Yet this government, in pursuing an accommodation with the Palestinian Arabs, has agreed that Israel will not exercise Jewish rights everywhere between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean.

In arguing that even unauthorized outposts "are completely legal," Ya'alon was staking out a position at odds with his own government.

The tone of what Ya'alon said was also off-putting. This newspaper has been critical of Peace Now for its wholesale marginalization of the entire settlement enterprise. We've criticized the organization too for taking money from foreign powers and foundations intent on swaying Israeli public opinion and government policies. Yet we have never questioned the motives of grassroots Israelis who earnestly identify with Peace Now. And we think Ya'alon's intolerant characterization of the organization as an elitist "virus" further demeans the level of political discourse in this country.

Ya'alon's venue was also peculiar. Netanyahu opposes any role for Feiglin within the party. The premier's ongoing campaign to block Feiglin, who nowadays plays by the rules of the political game, from lawfully dissenting within the Likud strikes us as wrongheaded. But in aligning himself so publicly with Netanyahu's nemesis, Ya'alon has demonstrated a remarkable lack of loyalty to the man who so recently ushered him into politics.

THE YA'ALON affair exposes yet again why the Israeli political system is dysfunctional. There is something awfully wrong when a number two feels no compunction about turning against his chief after only five months in office.

The controversy also reminds us that generals tend to find the give-and-take of politics exasperating. Politics is the art of the possible; it demands compromise and endless bargaining over who gets what, when and how. The military, in contrast, is a hierarchical organization. Generals give orders; subordinates obey.

Just as Ya'alon is proving a divisive force in the Likud - irritated, perhaps, that he has to compete with others in influencing the premier - Shaul Mofaz is champing at the bit as Tzipi Livni's number two in Kadima. Ehud Barak, meanwhile, has practically eviscerated the Labor Party to maintain his grip on power.

Ya'alon presents himself as a man above the fray who speaks truth to power. His supporters believe that Ariel Sharon did not extend the then chief of staff's term by the customary year because Ya'alon opposed the Gaza disengagement. Opinions differ on whether this was really so.

In any event, Ya'alon could learn something from his cabinet colleague Bennie Begin about honorable behavior at the apex of government.

THE PRIME Minister's Office announced that "Minister Ya'alon's statements are unacceptable to the prime minister, both in substance and in style, and do not represent the government's position."

Speaking at Bar-Ilan University in June, the premier outlined the peace policies of this government. He noted that "in the heart of our Jewish homeland [there] now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives." He offered to negotiate the creation of a demilitarized state for the Palestinians, insisting that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state and renounce the "right of return" to Israel proper for refugees and their descendants. A pullback to the 1949 Armistice Lines is out of the question.

Ya'alon heard that speech - some reports suggested he participated in drafting it - and the next day told Army Radio that he could live with a Palestinian state under the conditions defined by Netanyahu.
=========
Shabbat shalom

'Obamacare'

Wed & Thursday

The US health care debate

As Israelis observe Americans debate universal healthcare, we find ourselves struck by the fact that our little country is actually more advanced than the US in providing all residents with medical coverage. But we take no pleasure in the realization that political discourse in the US has sometimes deteriorated to the crude levels too often seen in Israel.

Most of America's 307 million people do have health coverage, either through their employers, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits or special government programs targeting children of the working poor.

But 49 million don't; some of these probably want coverage but can't afford it. An additional 25 million Americans have too little insurance for their needs.

Yet even without universal coverage, America has a budget deficit of $1.8 trillion and spends twice the average share of its gross domestic product - 16 percent - on health as Israel.

President Barack Obama wants every American to be able to choose a private or government-backed health care plan. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate have put forth several schemes (some with White House input) as they hold town-hall meetings with their constituents. No one yet knows what the final healthcare bill will look like.

Ardent conservatives, among them the influential radio personality Rush Limbaugh, say Obama's plan shows "similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany." Limbaugh: "Obama's got a healthcare logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook"; and "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claims the president is intent on setting up "death panels" of government bureaucrats empowered to determine whether disabled or elderly Americans are "worthy of healthcare."

WHAT explains such vituperative language? Part of the answer is that America's political culture abhors a concentration of power in any one branch of government out of a visceral fear, dating back to the founding fathers, of tyranny.

Moreover, as with all Big Lies, there is a kernel of truth to the implicit charge that universal healthcare will not provide unlimited care, forever, under all circumstances.

On the other hand, those who now have private insurance live under those same constraints, and those who have no insurance have no protection at all. All plans - commercial, governmental or hybrid - "ration" healthcare.

According to the Pew Research Center, most Republicans say the US healthcare system doesn't need fixing, while most Democrats argue the opposite view. But overall, says the center, 75 percent of Americans do want to change the system. And Obama remains popular with an average 53:40 approval rating, while his Democratic Party controls both houses of Congress.

Even Obama supporters say he needs to give the American people more specifics on how the plan will be paid for and better explain why providing a public or quasi-public option is not some elaborate plot for a government takeover of all healthcare delivery.

WE DO not presume to tell Americans how to proceed. We can only point to our own experience which demonstrates - albeit on a smaller scale - that universal coverage is workable.

However, there is no doubt that Israelis sacrifice a level of privacy that Americans enjoy. For instance, medical records in Israeli health funds are computerized, and their confidentiality is hardly airtight.

Visiting a family doctor here tends to be a no-frills affair. Care is generally of a high standard, but there are no stylish offices or solicitous receptionists. You hand the physician your magnetic card; there's a minimum of small talk; you're treated and quickly out the door.

Israelis belong to one of four health funds, equivalent to HMOs: Clalit, Maccabi, Meuhedet and Leumit. Your GP does not oversee your care during hospitalization. There may be a wait for elective procedures.

But hospitalizations and medications are fully covered, though most people also purchase supplementary health insurance from their health fund and some take out additional private insurance coverage.

Everyone is covered. We pay for it all through individual sliding-scale health taxes deducted from our salaries and transferred to the health funds via the National Insurance Institute.

It may well be that a modified version of our system could work well in the American setting.

Crime in Israel

Crime and values


Crime in Israel doesn't just seem to be getting worse. It is worse. On Monday, The Jerusalem Post published a "crime blotter," compiled from reports after the weekend by news editor Amir Mizroch, of murder (and dismemberment), armed robbery, intimidation of the police by mob figures, stabbings, rape, sexual assault, family violence and juvenile delinquency.

Many Israelis are dismayed by what is happening; especially the senseless murder of Leonard Karp and the assault on his wife and daughter on the promenade at Tel Baruch beach in Tel Aviv. A group of eight Arab youths, who were inebriated, accompanied by two young Jewish women, one a soldier, allegedly murdered Karp, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This news came on the heels of the recent discovery of body parts both in Ramat Gan and north of Netanya; the arrest of a suspected serial rapist in Haifa; and an apparent revenge murder in Beit Dagan - among other mayhem. In contrast, 20 years ago, the entire month of August 1989 passed without a single criminally-inspired murder. There were heroin busts and arrests for foreign currency smuggling. A police chase resulted in the accidental death of a three-year-old Tel Aviv girl. A Knesset committee learned that prostitution was unchecked; another panel heard that thousands of children had been abused. In addition to horrific violence associated with the first intifada, there was also the occasional attack by groups of Israeli Arabs inside the Green Line - robbing passersby (in Haifa) and throwing stones at strolling couples (in Acre). A Gaza Palestinian accused of raping and killing a Jewish boy was on trial for murder.

There was also religious violence, with Jerusalem haredim clashing with police (in Har Nof) in "defense of the sanctity of the Sabbath."

Though this country has never been a Shangri-La, it has known comparatively little violent crime of the kind that makes a person think twice about going out for a walk.

IT MAY be true that Israel's murder rate is now comparable to other advanced societies, as police insist. For instance, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics, there were 171 murders in Israel (population 7.4 million) during 2008. In New York City (population 8.3 million) there were, by comparison, 523 killed last year. London (7.5 million) averages around 170 homicides annually.

Comparing crime rates across societies is unsatisfying. Zionist sensibilities are not assuaged because Israel's murder rate is on par with London's. True, we are no longer a small and comparatively homogeneous country. Still, who wants "natural growth" in our murder rates, in line with an increasing population?

Israel is not immune to the ills that affect other advanced societies - teenage binge-drinking, desensitizing computer-generated virtual violence; brutality peddled as entertainment, laissez-faire parenting and adolescent ennui.

A PUBLIC policy debate is under way about how to address a situation perceived to be deteriorating.

Part of the solution is more effective and efficient management of police resources. For instance, in certain districts, community-based policing can provide some of the answers - especially when cops who know a neighborhood walk the beat. Decision-makers still need to decide whether it's best to give municipal officials jurisdiction over local crime-fighting, or empower regional police commanders to do the job.

We need to be hiring more police. Currently there are 2.65 cops for every 1,000 Israelis (in Italy, the ratio is 5:1). But quality matters as much quantity. Starting officers' salaries are woefully low; we need to raise the pay scale of police and strengthen their professionalism.

Enhancing personal security also requires appointing prosecutors and judges who put public safety first, and a Finance Ministry prepared to spend astutely on the criminal justice system, including the Prison Service. Above all, it requires leadership from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Since criminal behavior permeates all strata of society, tackling it requires a multi-faceted approach. For instance, youthful boredom in the Arab sector can perhaps be ameliorated by mandating community service.

One way to re-instill decency and civility as requisite values of Israeli society is for mukhtars, business leaders, politicians, rabbis, media personalities and other elites themselves to behave as if the children of this country are watching. Because they are.