Ever wondered how fringe organizations like IfNotNow and Breaking the Silence wield so much influence on the public discourse on Israel?
It’s not because these organizations are well-financed or organized, although that certainly helps. It’s because these organizations are set up primarily to create catchy, often-sensationalized media narratives about injustices which are packaged neatly for enthusiastic and ignorant journalists to write about. Oppression, segregation, colonialism, and collective punishment are the name of their game.
For the unacquainted, Birthright is a free trip to Israel sponsored in part by the Israeli government, and in part by private donors, to young men and women of Jewish heritage. The trip is largely apolitical, and endeavors to provide Jewish youth with an opportunity to connect with their roots, learn about the Jewish people, and visit a country with undeniable ties to their Judaism. Despite being as mainstream and apolitical as could be, the organization has come under fire from some who demand that it tackle Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians in greater detail, with the two aforementioned organizations hijacking multiple Birthright tours to score political points and make headlines in 2018.
One year later, another American Jewish organization catering to a left-leaning audience, the self-described “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” J Street, has launched its own version of the famous free trip to Israel. In keeping with J Street’s political agenda, this tour puts Israel’s actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians under the spotlight.
Related Reading: Birthright: Why the Controversy?
J Street has every right to its own tour of Israel, even if the move is provocative. New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief David Halbfinger, however, owes the public a better account of the tour than the one made in the July 10 edition the New York Times, entitled “Absorbing a Different Slice of a Jewish Birthright – An Unflinching View Of Israeli Occupation.”
Journalists are supposed to pride themselves on their ability to see all angles, ask tough questions, and describe comments and events in context. None of these skills are evident in Halbfinger’s press release article on the tour.
For years, Birthright has been regarded as a truly exceptional, successful enterprise in helping young men and women explore and build their own Jewish identities, and forge connections with Israel. It reaches out to people of all political persuasions, and of all denominations within Judaism, finding room for all. Criticism of Birthright is very much a minority agenda, and yet the NYT accepts wholesale the narrative that Birthright is somehow deceptive, and that alternatives show a more accurate picture of reality.
In providing only a perspective sympathetic to the Palestinians, writing through the eyes of left-wing U.S. Jewish group J Street, Halbfinger claims that “Birthright’s avoidance of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has made it the target of angry protests by left-leaning Jewish activists.”
This mindless acceptance of J Street talking points could so easily have been avoided if Halbfinger had only bothered to speak to Birthright lecturers such as myself: I openly mention the fact that Israeli military controls the Palestinians in the West Bank, that soldiers are given great power which must be used responsibly (which it is for the most part, but problems arise, inevitably), and tell every group that no matter whether this meets the definition of occupation or not, the reality is tough and undesirable.
Related reading: I Teach at Birthright. IfNotNow is Wrong.
As someone who delivers lectures to Birthright tour groups (in a private capacity), my talks get participants to discuss what checkpoints are like, and how terror groups like Hamas use human shields. We also deliberate what Israel’s options are in the long term, and the fact that the Palestinian people are divided between two disparate, clashing geopolitical entities. In short, Birthright educators like myself absolutely embrace the complexities and the realities. So much could be said here, but how many Birthright representatives, tour guides or lecturers were quoted in this New York Times piece? Zero.
Halbfinger could learn a great deal from Birthright. Educators are taught not shy away from complexity. In contrast, at no point does this article provide context. In mentioning Hebron, obvious questions are not asked: Why are masses of Israeli soldiers required to protect Jewish civilians living in Hebron? Should Jews living in Judaism’s second-holiest city be regarded simply as settlers? What about the centuries of persecution endured by Jews in this city?
All of this is deemed unimportant. Far more interesting, in Halbfinger’s eyes, is the shallow J Street claim that it exposes young Americans to the “realities” of the occupation. For example, his article quotes a Peace Now activist:
Hagit Ofran, a leader of Peace Now, addressed the group over a microphone and described how soldiers decided which motorists to stop: “To look suspicious,” she said, “you need to look Arab.”
At this point, the piece could have discussed how Israel got here or how effective its security forces are in preventing attacks. It could discuss the successes of Israel’s profiling policies, or detail the myriad attacks it has faced, including car ramming attacks, as well as guns and bombs being smuggled into Israeli towns and cities to then be used in murderous attacks. None of this is deemed relevant. Only Israel’s decontextualized response is worthy of coverage in this piece.
Instead of these things, Halbfinger dutifully reports only that participants are “disgusted” with Israel’s conduct, and that some are “reconsidering their belief in a Jewish state.” A journalist committed to the values of asking pointed questions would query how this kind of statement sits with J Street’s self-declared description as a “pro-Israel” organization.
Halbfinger does, however, tell readers of a black Jew who “had experienced more than her share of bigotry… [and] was hit hard by the idea that a ‘state founded to protect one marginalized group’ was oppressing another.”
A powerful image, indeed. A recklessly oversimplified one, too. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is not beyond reproach, but reducing it to a point where Israel is deemed to be “oppressing” another people, one whose leadership has repeatedly turned down various generous peace agreements, denies Palestinians entirely of agency for their situation, and leaves the blame entirely at Israel’s door.
In so doing, Halbfinger exacerbates concerns in Israel that it is not getting a fair hearing in the media, and that leftist NGOs are not acting in good faith but trying to shame Israel. In penning a piece like this, Halbfinger and the New York Times are acting as willing partners in this shaming. See how an email sent by J Street’s national director of young leadership trumpeted the success of being covered so positively in one of the world’s most well-known newspapers:
We knew that a bold and unique effort like this would receive attention. But I was still blown away — and filled with pride and excitement — by the coverage the “Let Our People Know” trip received this morning in a full page story in The New York Times.
J Street’s tours may or may not be worthy of coverage, but in publishing a piece devoid of context and piercing questions, the New York Times is acting as a shill for those who spend their time highlighting Israel’s every flaw.
