The last time I felt this way was when The Israel Project had the guts to make Frank Luntz’s hasbara opus public, thus laying out almost the entire game plan of the Israel lobby. Now, comes word of a new report by Israel’s Reut Institute, spooky think tank devoted to speculating on who’s trying get Israel and how we get ’em first.
Reading the summary of this report gives one the sense of listening in on a bunch of generals and intelligence officers plotting Israel’s global strategy against the bad guys. Of course, the main problem is that the bad guys aren’t just the ones hiding in caves in Pakistan or building bombs to kill Israeli civilians. For Reut, the bad guys are, well–you and me. That’s what makes this report so monstrous. Yes, I use that term deliberately because this isn’t some document produced by David Horowitz or Moshe Feiglin, a bunch of crazy loons no one takes seriously. This is a manual for Israeli pols and spooks outlining how to fight the enemy. And I gotta tell ya, when they say enemy, they mean it literally. We are in the cross hairs along with all the usual suspects like Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. This is pro-Israel paranoia and it strikes deep:
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your heart it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
Step out of line, the Man come and take you away.–For What It’s Worth, Buffalo Springfield
Just like the IDF made no distinction between civilians and fighters in Gaza, the new tack by Reut seems to treat all Israel’s critics as, if not terrorist, then fellow travelers and accomplices. The rhetoric is feverish, apocalyptic. You’ll notice how many times the word “existential” is used in the Bibiesque context.
The only truth in the entire report is the introduction which posits that the greatest danger to Israel in the recent past has been the Gaza and Lebanon wars because they have served to unify Israel’s enemies as never before. But every idea proceeding from this thesis is bogus starting here:
There are two main generators of attacks on Israel’s legitimacy. The Resistance Network – which operates on the basis of Islamist ideology and includes Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas; and the Delegitimization Network – which operates in the international arena in order to negate Israel’s right to exist and includes individuals and organizations in the West, which are catalyzed by the radical left.
…The erosion in Israel’s status internationally is driven by the coalescence of two parallel process:
The Resistance Network advancing the ‘implosion strategy’ that aims to precipitate Israel’s internal collapse through a policy of ‘overstretch’: To achieve this, the Resistance Network increases the burden of the ‘Occupation,’ delegitimizes Israel, and develops an asymmetric use-of-force doctrine in the military arena and towards Israel’s home front. These groups take their inspiration from the collapse of the former Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa.
- …The Resistance Network relies on military means to sabotage every move directed at affecting separation between Israel and the Palestinians or securing a two-state solution.
This attack on Israel’s political and economic model is effective, possesses strategic significance, and may develop into a comprehensive existential threat within a few years.
Note here that it is Israel’s enemies undermining the two-state solution and not Israel itself. Can you think of anything more deluded?
So far, the rhetoric is overblown, but the analysis is standard hasbara. But then it takes an unusual tack:
A harbinger of such a threat would be the collapse of the two-state solution as an agreed framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the coalescence behind a ‘one-state solution’ as a new alternative framework.
What’s especially strange about this notion is that Israel is doing everything in its power to avoid a two-state solution, which in turn drives Israel’s critics into the arms of the one-state solution as the only remaining viable option (the view of some critics, though not necessarily my own). So Reut has set up a beautiful tautology: if Israel’s enemies coalesce around a one-state solution it will be the ultimate expression of hatred of the state of Israel. But Israel itself will do everything in its power to avoid a two-state solution. The logic is beautiful, twisted and totally self-fulfilling.
Where will the next anti-Israel weapon come from after the Gaza and Lebanon wars lose their resonance? Israel’s Palestinian citizens of course (do I hear, “fifth column” anyone?):
…The issue of Israel’s Arab citizens may become the next ‘outstanding’ issue on these groups’ agenda. In fact, the Resistance Network has already attempted to harness this community, albeit with very limited success.
And if you’re wondering, as I have, what formal or informal role Israel’s security establishment has played in the vicious attack on Israel NGOs who cooperated with Goldstone, this should key you in:
…The threat undermining its [Israel’s] legitimacy originates in a network of NGOs around the world whose role on the global stage is increasingly influential. Israel lacks a response to this threat…
This is part and parcel of the alarmy Israeli effort to criminalize advocacy on behalf of democracy and human rights. In fact, I’ve been following Israeli society going back to 1967 and I’ve never felt there was a time in Israel more like the McCarthy era. The Israeli right and intelligence agencies are playing and playing for keeps.
The practical “policy options” are the most chilling element of this analysis. This is a practical blueprint for Israeli intelligence and its activities for the coming years. Pay attention especially to the italicized passage also noted by Ali Abunimah in this incisive analysis of the report:
Israel’s security doctrine must ensure ‘Synchronized Victories’ in a number of arenas simultaneously: the military arena, the political-diplomatic arena, in the home front, and within the media. Because these arenas are interlinked in a number of contexts, they should be considered as a whole.The above threat may become existential in nature. It is imperative to treat it as such: Israel needs to harness the intelligence establishment, to develop new knowledge, to draw upon all the relevant bodies, and to create a relevant strategy.
It takes a network to fight a network – In order to contend with the Delegitimization Network, Israel must operate according to a network-driven logic:
On the one hand, Israel must identify and focus its efforts on global hubs of delegitimization (such as London, Toronto, Madrid, and the Bay Area [ed., damn they left out Seattle!]). In this context, Israel should sabotage network catalysts and drive a wedge between its component parts, primarily between soft critics of Israeli policy and delegitimizers of its existence.
When Reut uses the term “sabotage” above they don’t mean it symbolically or metaphorically. I take this as literal. This is why Sheera Frenkel’s Times of London article on the Mossad assassination campaign against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian targets adds weight and fear to the above passage. Further, the creation and maintenance of Israeli rightist NGOs like Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor would seem to be a deliberate outgrowth of the advice in the last paragraph above. We must presume that many of these groups are either creatures of the security establishment or doing its bidding (intentionally or unintentionally). But not just NGOs, Reut is recommending the cultivation of local spies and fellow travelers (“informal ambassadors”). And the former worker’s union, the Histadrut, which presumably might find favor in some international leftist circles, is to be exploited on behalf of Israeli intelligence objectives.
The report revives the deluded notion that Israel, the damaged goods product, can be miraculously re-branded as a peace-loving, hip, cool, technologically sophisticated place:
Brand Israel – The perception of Israel as a violent country that violates international law enables delegitimizing forces to portray the country as an apartheid, pariah state. Israel’s re-branding can yield strategic implications which will improve its ability to communicate its message and reduce the Delegitimization Network’s ability to achieve its goals. In this context, the importance of international aid should be emphasized (in addition, of course, to its clear moral value).
Among the most cynical advice here is that Israel should shamelessly and fawningly create friends among “influentials” who can put in a good word here, write a puffy op ed piece there, and pass along useful intelligence to Tel Aviv:
Relationship-based diplomacy with elites and ‘influentials’ – An effective barrier against delegitimization is a network of personal relationships. Working within identified hubs, Israel should aspire to maintain thousands of personal relationships with political, financial, cultural, media, and security-related elites and influentials.Harnessing the Jewish and Israeli Diaspora communities – There are a significant number of Israelis abroad, such as academics, business people, and students. These communities should be harnessed to Israel’s cause before they embark on their international interactions. Additionally, Israel should make a concerted investment in Jewish communities, without taking their commitment for granted.
The rhetoric here is so Luntzian I’d be surprised if he wasn’t a–or the consultant preparing this document. Not to mention the utter cynicism displayed. It’s Frank Luntz through and through.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=640)
I think Reut with an Aleph means vision in Hebrew rather than friendship.
Also i am not sure how their suggestion of ‘driving a wedge between soft critics of Israeli policy and delegitimizers of its existence’ fits in with your claim that they ‘treat all Israel’s critics as, if not terrorist, then fellow travelers and accomplices.’
Thanks for that correction. I presume you’re right & it comes from the root for sight. I’ll correct that error.
This rpt suggests that all NGOs that are critical of Israel including ones that are as mild as NIF are enemies plain & simple. It doesn’t distinguish. And in the current political climate in Israel we can certainly say that no such distinction is made.
While the report borders on the fascist in viewing any criticism as disloyal – and requiring such loyalty in the first place – it does make a distinction between “soft critics” and “delegitimizers of Israel’s existence” in that the former are allegedly redeemable for the tribe. In the view of the report, wedging them away from the “delegitimizers” removes them from their “useful idiot” status.
Interesting point, fiddler.
But this is the false empty dichotomy you hear a lot from Israel policy defenders, ‘soft (read acceptable) critics’ and then ‘delegitimizers’, whatever the latter really means, as if that’s the whole universe. Anything beyond soft, gingerly criticism skirts with the ‘delegitimizing’ position in this perspective.
The oldest hasbara refrain in response to any real, substantive, forceful criticism of Israeli behavior is, “but Israel has a right to exist”. Only soft-pedalling rationalizing apologetic ‘criticism’ is acceptable, which of course makes sure to emphasize that the other Palestinian (or more broadly Arab, or Persian) side is far, far worse and less human than ‘we’ are.
And of course underpinning this false dichotomy is the highly politicized use and understanding of the Holocaust and the ideological narrative constructed around that horrible historical event, by Israel’s boosters & defenders in this context. For we all know that substantive fundamental criticism of Israel is really just a mask for the world’s congenital and perpetual hatred of the Jews (as the narrative goes). It doesn’t really have to do with Israel’s actual behavior in the world and toward its neighbors.
As lunatic as the above narrative is in the context of the actual history and present of Israel and the Palestinians, this is the underlying recurring thrust of the hasbarists. I can’t always tell how many hasbarists actually believe their own empty ‘existential’ rhetoric, or whether it is merely a strategic ideological and rhetorical tack that they know is effective because of the place of the Holocaust and historical European Jewish suffering—also very much ideologically framed—in American political and cultural consciousness. Probably some of both, but more of the latter.
Why not get into bed with the one staters. Israel will never do as you want it too
Israel will not do so willingly. But in the very near future it may have little choice. Remember S. Africa!!?!
Have we read the same report? Re’ut is a sober advocate of a two-state solution. The report says that if the two forces it identifies coalesce, that solution is impeded. Is that not so? Or do you not accept the distinction between “soft critics” and those who challenge Israel’s very existence? In no way does the report suggest that “mild” critics are “enemies plain and simple.” It is preposterous to suppose that the Re’ut people are happy with Im Tirtzu or NGO Monitor. Those are not the kinds of NGOs Re’ut seeks to “harness.” Reality check, please.
Reut is spouting gobbledy gook in this report and the fact that you would defend it indicates that you have lost yr political bearings. Reut is basically speaking on behalf of, or directly to Israeli intelligence. Is that where you see your allies in Israeli society??
It is Israel & Israel alone that is responsible for destroying the viability of a 2 state solution. No one else is to blame & for Reut to attempt to do so indicates it’s mendacity and bad faith.
Bravo, Richard. I have been wondering what happened to Leonard since he disappeared from Americans for Peace Now. It seems that he and J Street are pushing for a two state solution that the beneficiaries of which are doing everything to prevent. Utter hypocrisy.
[comment deleted for violating comment rules]
Gene: Yes, the prospective beneficiaries are surely not cooperating. Often, they appear to be subverting. So? Does that mean that those of us who endorse a two-state solution should simply tell them to go to hell, they deserve what they get? I fail to see the hypocrisy of opposing government policies that are offensive.
Richard: My political bearings are hardly the issue here. Your ideological bearings, which enable you to say that “Israel and Israel alone” is to blame, as if we were witness not to a genuine tragedy but to a villain vs. a hero, are the issue. But: It’s your blog and your Manichaean view that prevails here. So I will withdraw from this argument.
You mean yr liberal Zionism and your affection for the noxious Reut Institute are hardly the issue? On the contrary, they are precisely the issue.
Excuse me, I didn’t realize Palestine was somehow responsible for issuing the Reut report & the atrocious policy suggestions it contains. BTW, are you also in accord with Reut’s suggestion that Israel should “sabotage” the work (& possibly lives) of its ideological opponents? Just curious where you come down on such hanky panky.
I’m also rather surprised considering yr intelligence that you resort to the usual false attribution of views to me I do not hold–namely that only Israel is at fault for this tragedy. However, I know we part company in where we attribute the vast share of responsibility for this tragedy–to Israel far the stronger party politically, economically, militarily. With far the more intransigent gov’t & far the more brutal & lethal policies. And last I checked it was Israel holding conquered territory for 40 yrs. & not the only way round.
You might learn something if you hung around here longer instead of vanishing as you have. But I agree it’s far more conducive for you to hang out at the usual liberal Zionist spots than here.
I read today in Haaretz that has both Lieberman and Ayalon saying that “radical Islam” is responsible for the negative image of Israel around the world, that somehow I guess “radical Islam” is controlling all the news outlets, human rights organizations, and people like me, and that Israel’s poor image has nothing to do with its atrocious actions and policies. I laughed aloud, imagining radical Islam being behind the phosphorus bombings of Gaza, the building of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the most recent (probable) Mossad adventure in Dubai. The Reut report seems to be tailor-made to reinforce the state of denial that is Israel.
Saw this on mondoweiss.
This is like…insane.
I am serious, these folks have totally lost it.
How to they expect this kind of nonsense PR to work?
They are demanding war with Iran, decimiating Gaza, pissing off everyone from Turkey to Russia…I mean deliberately insulting and pissing off almost everyone on earth with petty thug behavior…and think a PR campaign is going to help that?
Beam me up Scotty!
The leading peace advocates and writers in the US need to be careful…don’t stop but be careful…I’am serious.
Calling you existential threats is the step before some nut among them or some nut they have riled up tries to disappear you for good.