If there is ever going to be a Harvard Business School case study on effective public advocacy, Im Tirtzu’s video calling out four leaders of Israel-bashing Israeli NGOs for (a) conduct that both aids and abets terrorism, and (b) being heavily financially supported by foreign governments and the New Israel Fund, will be studied closely.
Not so much because of the video itself (though that has certainly generated a lot of comment), but because of the galvanizing impact the video has had on Israeli society.
As Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak pointed out in an op ed called “Silencing the truth sayers,” the issue of foreign funding of Israeli NGOs has been written about by groups such as NGO Monitor for years. However, it was only with Im Tirtzu’s video that the issue became a cause celebre in the Israeli media.
Of course the issue was ripe for extreme attention. The reality of foreign governmental involvement in de-legitimizing accusations by Israeli NGOs is devastating, one that has offended and angered many Israelis. In fact, surveys have shown that not only is the public angered, but they support the efforts to call these groups out.
More than a video, this underlying anger has produced real results that have made the campaign a success: the banning of Breaking the Silence by the Defense and Education Ministries, and the unprecedented progress of the NGO Financing Bill. And again, heightened and charged public awareness.
But let’s go back to the video. The reaction to it has broken down into three readily identifiable categories: there has been the predictable hue and cry rising from the Left, with the usual accusations of McCarthyism, fascism rising from those astounded at the effrontery of this little but loud group to question the moral bona fides of tireless human rights crusaders. Because of the heavily Leftward tilt of the media here, the negative unto hysterical reaction has been predominant.
But there are also those who rise to congratulate Im Tirtzu for…well, for its effrontery in calling out the hypocritical behavior of those wrapped in a mantle of human rights, but who are merely political opportunists serving the agenda of foreign governments trying to influence Israeli policy.
Finally, there are the embarrassed types who, are trying to have it both ways, backpedaling away furiously from the edgy, provocative video, while acknowledging that the video has in fact exposed a subject that needs to be addressed. To this last group, it would have been better to somehow have done this all in a more tasteful, less “in your face” kind of way, though no one quite knows what form that would take.
As I think about this (admittedly in the midst of the issue and not dispassionately on the sidelines), it occurs to me that much of what is being said parallels in tone the reaction to Israel’s bombing of the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
Then too, there was a large group of tsk-tskers and finger pointers decrying Israel’s provocative warmongering. There were also those who, recognizing the potential seriousness of an Iraqi nuclear reactor, suggested that there must be better, less provocative ways to approach the issue, without a full fledged attack.
More condemned Israel than supported her. The Reagan Administration was vocal in its condemnation, as was Shimon Peres. The common thread was warmongering, raising the temperature, being provocative and crossing the line into unacceptable behavior.
Sound familiar? I think so. Now don’t think I am trying to say that Im Tirtzu’s effort is as significant for the world as the bombing of Osirak turned out to be. But I am saying that many matters, controversial in their time, in retrospect are reassessed, accepted and appreciated in a way that was completely absent and unforeseen in the moment.
Look at the re-valuation of Menachem Begin and Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Today, Jabotinsky is a founding father of Israel; not too long ago he was an unadulterated fascist who, given his druthers, would have had storm troopers marching around the country.
Menachem Begin, seen now as the most principled, selfless Prime Minister in Israeli history, was reviled by the Labor Party in terms that would make a sailor blush. He was dismissed as an ultra-nationalist, a prospective dictator, and someone who could only get elected by appealing to the jingoism of the great unwashed.
Fast forward ten years from now. I strongly believe that there will be a sense that Im Tirtzu provided a fairly thankless service to the nation. I believe that there will be a retrospective assessment that calling attention to a corrosive situation was a needed slap in the face and wake up call. All these things for a society that had been lulled by the highfalutin’ depictions of human rights activities that were really demonization and de-legitimization of Israel on the world’s stage.
Osirak was a stick in the eye, an assertion that something dangerous was afoot and, however starkly and aggressively, needed to be confronted.
Im Tirtzu is not immune to controversy and is not going to win too many Miss Congeniality crowns among fellow NGOs. But it too has been willing to do what it believes needs to be done on behalf of Israel, not seeking accolades, but results.