“Schlaglicht Israel” offers an insight into internal Israeli debates and reflects selected, political events that affect daily life in Israel. It appears every two weeks and summarizes articles that appeared in the Israeli daily press.
⇒Download the latest Publication of “Schlaglicht Israel”!
Main topics covered in this Publication:
- Trump wins the Presidential Elections
- Fighting about illegatl Settlements
- Netanyahu’s struggle against critical Journalism
- Selection of Articles
Trump wins Presidential Elections
The morning after
(…) An electorate was called upon to decide whether in fact America was not great anymore, but could be made so again, but without any serious plan to do so. (…) this is not the first time in American history that an unknown quantity reached the White House. John Kennedy’s election in 1960 was followed by the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. His introduction of American “advisers” led to the tragic folly of the Vietnam War, while his showdown with Russia in the Cuban missile crisis flirted with an atomic Armageddon. (…) Ronald Reagan’s ascension in 1980 was the first time an actor was called upon to take up the reins of government – now a TV “reality show” star is being forced to confront the real thing. (…) Redemption will not come easily in an American electorate so polarized during the election campaign (…). The world will continue to move away from the center and toward the extremes on both the Right and the Left. (…) While many voters are worried that President Barack Obama might try to tie the hands of his successor regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict by sending it to the United Nations during the interim before Trump’s inauguration, the incoming president has promised to be Israel’s best friend. Trump should insist that the lame-duck president not do so, and reiterate America’s commitment to the direct negotiations that Israel continues to demand as the only way to achieve peace.
Editorial, JPO, 09.11.16
The fear that propelled Donald Trump requires no logic
(…) in our sanctimony, our outrage, our righteousness, we overlook the way in which we appear to the other. The fact is that populism is not only rising on the right. The hard left, too, is angry, scared and increasingly vitriolic. Many on the left are displaying the very traits they disparage the right for exhibiting. Fear is well and truly on the march. (…) We liberals must grieve this election loss, yes. (…) But, most of all, we must then act to dissipate this fear among Trump supporters themselves. And that cannot happen, will not happen, if we are scared ourselves. Shouting, insulting and finger-pointing at a moment like this rarely changes opinions, but neither does pretending there is no problem. (…) Fear requires no logic. (…) Indeed, the only thing this fear has in common is the overwhelming narcissism of its most devout adherents. Everything must revolve around us. Only we are the victims. Nobody else’s pain matters. Unless, of course, it can be used to teach them how much we have been suffering, too. (…) what will feed this racism, bigotry, and xenophobia even more is refusing to talk about the very real challenges to culture and liberalism that globalisation and intercultural exchange bring. Silencing this conversation only encourages the populist right’s rallying cry against “the establishment”. (…) Love and empathy must win over hate and vengeance. Everyone is a victim, and everyone is an aggressor.
Maajid Nawaz, TOI, 09.11.16
Reflecting on Trump, as an optimistic college student
Donald Trump has just been elected President of the United States of America, and I’ve never been more inspired. (…) There’s so much more to do now. (…) The fact that Donald Trump is the next president means we have so much more work to do to keep this country safe. Donald Trump has just been elected President of the United States of America, and I’ve never been more inspired to work for justice in America. (…) The next four years with Donald Trump as president will be difficult and frustrating, but this is a call to arms. (…) I haven’t lost hope in America. (…) Donald Trump has just been elected president of the United States of America, and we have a country to save.
Madison Laks, TOI, 10.11.16
Who are you calling ‘deplorable’?
Had she won, Hillary Clinton could certainly afford to admit in her memoirs that she would rather have achieved her victory against a more “decent” candidate. (…) In the course of her campaign Clinton presented the possibility that people would vote for Trump and not for her as the voters’ problem, not hers. In other words, she saw it as something that says more about them than about her. This culminated in her saying that half of Trump’s voters were “deplorables.” This was an important moment in the campaign, because it was rare in its honesty. (…) Trump may be deplorable, but he realized immediately that she had lost the election, that she was exposed for who she was – one who likes the people’s rule, but hates the people. She loves America, but hates Americans. Trump detected that this hatred was implanted in her like real racism. That’s why he emphasized that she called his voters not only deplorable but “irredeemable.” (…) Tens of millions of women voted for him because they understood that although he talks about women the way he does, he doesn’t hate women; masses of Hispanics voted for him because they understood that although he talks about Hispanics the way he does, he doesn’t hate Hispanics. (…) Like Trump they believed that under the liberal humanistic talk and slogans, the only one tainted with hatred was Clinton. (…) Trump’s lies didn’t make him a liar in his voters’ eyes, while in contrast, Clinton became the face of the liberal lie. (…) Trump’s supporters may be deplorable, but they’re not morons. They made it clear in the polls that if they don’t have the America they want, no one else will, either. (…)
Carolina Landsmann, 11.11.16
Does Trump’s love for Israel trump his unpredictability?
(…) bottom line, Trump is a mystery. On the one hand, Trump is indeed a big lover of Israel. On the other, there is no way to tell how he is going to act. (…) he will put America’s interests first. Jerusalem heard his words loud and clear when he said that Israel would need to pay for the security assistance the country receives from the US. He went back on this statement, but the red flags have been raised. (…) Trump will not rush to try and make an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. His foreign policy interests have more to do with trade deals between the US and China and the US and Latin America. Nevertheless, when Trump finally decides to get himself involved in the peace process, it will likely be an all or nothing affair. He will announce that he will be able to solve the conflict and get the two sides to come to an agreement. (…)
Itamar Eichner, JED, 10.11.16
Trump and Israel: A test of intent
(…) It was also another dark day for pollsters, pundits and allotment of “experts.” (…) Trump promised to work to annul the nuclear deal between Iran and the West. While it remains to be seen whether such an endeavor is realistic, it is still safe to assume that Washington’s rapprochement with Tehran, spearheaded by Obama, will cease in its tracks. (…) Trump’s statements have been pleasant to our ears, including his well-documented promise to transfer the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. To be sure, the future will show whether this declaration of intent is followed with concrete action, or relegated to the dustbin of unfulfilled promises. (…) Trump’s first meaningful test pertains to the agreement between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon on the large settlement blocs — an agreement that Obama ignored. Another critical result of these elections is that in contrast to all the expectations, the Republicans maintained their majority in both houses of Congress — which factors prominently in the administration’s conduct with Israel. The joker in the deck of these predictions is Obama. Will the outgoing president use the United Nations to handcuff Trump on the Palestinian front, or will he prefer to observe from afar how his successor chooses to tackle these issues.
Zalman Shoval, IHY, 10.11.16
A window of opportunity for Israel-US relations
US President-elect Donald Trump will have a dramatic impact on the direction the United States moves in. (…) There is no alternative to the US as the most important world power supporting Israel. Neither Russia nor China help Israel’s security with billions of dollars or supply modern arms systems to reinforce the IDF. Nor are they the ones that veto anti-Israel resolutions at the Security Council. Although foreign policy was not a significant factor in the elections, Trump voiced a pro-Israel position despite problematic comments he had made in the past. Israel has an opportunity to turn over a new leaf, influence the policy—and be an integral part of it. (…) Not just Israel, but also Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey want to see a different policy. Israel’s good relations with Egypt and Jordan, its common interests with Saudi Arabia and a renewal of its relations with Turkey could serve as a basis for a strong alliance which will better deal with the challenges. (…)The change of president is an opportunity to look into new paradigms for agreements combining the Arab world. New ideas which will preserve the two-state idea as possible but will recognize the impossibility of reaching a permanent agreement at this time. (…) Israel’s security, as a fundamental part of the relations, should be validated and reinforced: the multi-year aid, maintaining the relative advantage in weapon systems, supporting missile defense programs and the agreements on the special strategy abilities attributed to Israel will all strengthen the special relations between the two countries and serve as a basis for diplomatic breakthroughs.
Amos Yadlin, JED, 12.11.16
Trump’s win has emboldened racists – in Israel’s government
Last week’s election of Donald Trump has (…) emboldened some far-right elements of Israeli society to express their racist sentiments more openly. (…) They should think seriously, however, about what could come next. (…) Rather than preparing for any peace proposal, the Israeli government spent the eight years of Obama’s presidency expanding settlements, demolishing Palestinian homes and denying basic human rights, through a whole host of oppressive policies. (…) Israeli officials ignored the calls of their closest ally to give peace a chance, and continued with their political program of turning all of historic Palestine into one single state with two systems, one for Jews and one for non-Jews. Israel’s reaction to Donald Trump’s election only reaffirms that Tel Aviv is not interested in ending the occupation. (…) Palestine’s vision of peace has been consistent, and is clearly outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative: Two sovereign states on the 1967 border (…). Without a partner for peace, however, there is very little we can do, except to remain where we are when it comes to Israel. (…) Despite decades of exile, occupation and colonization, Palestinians have held on to their homeland. As we have recognized the existence and reality of the State of Israel, so must Israel recognize the existence and reality of the State of Palestine. (…) And yet, Israel will likely intensify its current zero-sum strategy under Donald Trump’s presidency. (…) Though we disagree with anyone referring to our demographic reality as a threat to anyone, it is a fact that the size of the Palestinian population within historic Palestine is beginning to surpass that of the Jewish population. Mr. Netanyahu’s success in burying the two-state solution will inevitably be met with a different discussion: Equal rights for everyone living under Israel’s control. Is Tel Aviv prepared for that? Apartheid has no place anywhere in the world, including Palestine.
Dr. Saeb Erekat, HAA, 14.11.16
A diplomatic opportunity
(…) the results of these elections do not necessarily indicate a complete overhaul of basic American policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump will perhaps declare his recognition of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel, something his predecessors should have done a long time ago. (…) In the future, we will certainly hear less about the settlements being an “obstacle to peace,” (…) Trump’s approach toward protecting America’s borders is compatible to Israel’s fundamental demand to maintain defensible borders. (…) Trump, like Obama, will lean toward a doctrine of avoiding American over-involvement abroad. In this context, we might ask ourselves whether a president who waved the banner of “making American great again” will truly want to lose the Middle East or parts of Europe to those who will happily fill the void such a policy would leave. (…) Trump’s victory is expected to improve Israeli-U.S. relations, likely putting an end to the era of public and private clashes over matters such as construction in Jerusalem and large settlement blocs. (…) There is now an opportunity for the close ties between Jerusalem and Washington to result in steps toward peace, or at least interim agreements that will not harm Israel’s security and other interests (…).
Zalman Shoval, IHY, 14.11.16
Trump era must not be wasted on ‘two-state’ solution
The surprising results in the US presidential election create both concerns and new opportunities for Israel. (…) the American administration has supported the “two-state” solution. (…) This solution is based on four assumptions. (…) These four assumptions create very limited room for negotiations. (…) But who says these assumptions are four cornerstones we cannot do without? If we free ourselves from them and try to look into the entire range of possible solutions, we will find that some of the other solutions have an outstanding advantage over the only known solution. Among the other solutions, we can talk about a “regional solution” with land swaps between four players—Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Palestine—or about the creation of a federation between Jordan and the West Bank, or about a functional and not necessarily territorial division between us and the Palestinians. (…) The Israeli government has two options: It can either determine that there is no solution to the conflict and that it should therefore continue “managing” it, or it could launch a dialogue with the new administration which would examine the entire range of possibilities, without being committed to the four aforementioned assumptions.(…) If we waste the next four years, we may regret it in the future.
Giora Eiland, JED, 15.11.16
Fighting about illegal Settlements
Amona is here to stay
Ten years ago, we arrived at Amona. (…) We built our home in Amona and had our children there. (…) no one said there was anything illegal about it. We were told that Amona would be a large neighborhood, and the Housing Ministry launched construction work for dozens of houses. One bright day, the sky fell down on us. High Court petitions, courts, private lands. (…) We had come to make the land bloom. We wanted to do something good, and suddenly we’re robbers. There is no other place in the world where people are uprooted from the home they have been living in for years. (…) There are thousands of other families in Judea and Samaria that live in homes that were revealed as problematic only after being built. Even the prime minister has told us that there are “many other Amonas.” Bibi (…) tell the truth: You’re not really planning to evacuate thousands of families from their homes, are you?! So regularize our home. Make it legal. (…) We will not move away from here.
Revital Halbershtat, JED, 04.11.16
Residents of Amona should not have to pay for state’s mistakes
The State of Israel has been in control of Judea and Samaria for nearly 50 years now. It has an historic connection to Hebron and Shilo, yet it has been hesitant for 50 years and has not dared touch the sensitive issue of land regulation. Not even in Jerusalem. (…) Since the beginning of the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria, most communities were built on state lands. (…) In exceptional cases, existing communities spread on lands which were registered as private—Ofra, for example. Later on, individual outposts were created on private lands—Amona, for example. As someone who lived in Amona in the past and who lives in Ofra today, I have said it and I will say it again: It was a mistake. (…) The settler leaders are also responsible for this failure, but it is mostly the state’s messengers who were involved in the construction and development of communities on private lands. A mistake (…) cannot be fixed with another mistake. A demolition of Amona and of homes in Ofra or in Netiv Ha’avot is a serious mistake. The residents (…) should not have to pay for the state’s mistakes. The softened Regulation Bill seeks to fix the mistake in a different way, a way which will benefit the land owners through compensation and prevent damage to the residents. The bill does not seek, under any circumstances, to allow the mistake to continue—in other words, to spread to more private lands. It only seeks to regulate what has already been built. (…)
Yifat Erlich, JED, 14.11.16
We must respect the court
(…) The Supreme Court, in its capacity as examiner of the integrity and fairness of these national compromises, plays a central part in ensuring our ability to live together in one country. Therefore, it is essential to protect the status, honor and authority of the court, even when there are occasional disagreements with one group or another over a ruling. There is no democracy without the rule of law. (…) The Amona issue has been under legal discussion for several years. (…) The entire land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel, since its earliest appearance in history. With that, the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem were bought with money, even though it was possible at the time to receive them for free or to take them by force. The realization of the prophecy of settling the land of Israel must be carried out on the foundations of justice and honesty, so that many years from now, they do not tell our grandchildren and great-grandchildren that we stole it. (…) the proposed outpost regulation bill will not solve the problem of the outpost in Amona. We should not delude the wonderful pioneers, the redeemers of our land and the visionaries. We can realize their vision in nearby places, on state land. It’s true that the time has come after 50 years to regulate the legal status of swathes of the homeland. There are ways to do this through legislation, not necessarily with the outpost regulation bill. (…) Our path is not easy, but we will reach the top of the hill together, and only if petty shortsighted politics does not distract us from the true, great mission.
Haim Shine, IHY, 15.11.16
Amona and democracy
(…) This week, the government began advancing legislation that would legalize settlements like Amona despite the fact that they were built on privately owned land. Apparently, politicians on the Right believe that such a law would allow them to override the High Court’s ruling. (…) The High Court ruling must be upheld. The balance of power between Israel’s judicial and legislative branches must be respected. Our political and judicial leaders must not be intimidated by the threats of violence made by those opposed to the evacuation of Amona. Ultimately (…) the future of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is (…) a diplomatic issue that needs to be dealt with within the framework of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. (…) We sympathize with the plight of the 40 families of Amona who will be uprooted from their homes. (…) True, they could have easily inquired and discovered that the land set aside for Amona belonged to private individuals. But government ministers led them to believe the matter would be sorted out and settlers relied on these promises. Under more normal circumstances, a compromise could have been reached with the Palestinian landowners. (…) There are no easy answers, but the High Court is the final arbiter on these questions, and the High Court has made its decision. Whether or not the Knesset passes on Wednesday the bill to legalize outposts such as Amona, the government must uphold the High Court’s decision or risk undermining Israel’s democracy.
Editorial, JPO, 15.11.16
At the settlers’ expense
The main purpose of the outpost regulation bill is not to settle the status of the homes in the Amona outpost, among the rest of the buildings slated for eviction by the High Court. The bill is meant, first and foremost, to settle certain politicians’ futures. (…) It is enough just to see Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett’s frenzy to understand how this works. After being critical of the proposal for months, he boasted of finding a new solution: a motion to the High Court to delay the evacuation by seven months. Never mind the fact that it was not his idea, but after promoting the request, he is now abandoning it for the regulation bill. There is no doubt that Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria requires regularization. The settlers, who settled there in accordance with the state’s decisions and with its encouragement, do not need to live with a question mark looming over their future. The question is whether this bill is the solution, and whether there is a chance for it to be passed retroactively following the High Court’s previous ruling on the issue. (…) But when you can get a free ride at the settlers’ expense, who really wants to have a serious discussion?
Mati Tuchfeld, IHY, 13.11.16
Netanyahu’s surrender to settlers proves him a cowardly leader
It’s hard to list all the shortcomings and distortions that have characterized the state’s handling of the illegal outposts in the territories over the years. But it seems the current government manages to top them all. (…) the so-called “regularization bill,” aimed at retroactively legalizing illegal outposts that were built on private Palestinian land (…) destroys the rule of law and permits officially sanctioned land theft on a grand scale. (…) Israel is effectively telling the Palestinians and the world that it plans to whitewash the crimes of the occupation. This is liable to cause a diplomatic mess, especially with a new president coming into the White House. The proposed law will spur the Palestinians into going to the UN Security Council, and will push the United States into a corner – from which it will have a hard time defending Israel and wielding its veto power. (…) Netanyahu, who is filled with courage and bravery when he lashes out venomously at journalists, is being led by the nose by Bennett, who himself is capitulating to his most extreme voters. The premier is unable to impose his authority on his ministers, who supported a bill that he opposes. (…) The regularization bill must be rejected immediately, because it is immoral and contradicts the interests of most of the country’s citizens. We must not surrender to the whims of a handful of loud extortionists.
Editorial, HAA, 15.11.16
Netanyahu’s struggle against critical Journalism
Israel’s shameless non-public media
Not the occupation and the damage it causes, not the uni-national country that is coming into being, not the cost of living, not the dying of the country’s outlying areas. It turns out that the hottest issue on the agenda of the Israeli government these days is the future of public broadcasting, which has already been planned out in detailed legislation. (…) Allow me to direct your attention to a news item posted Sunday on the Walla Hebrew website: “Miss Holocaust Survivor for 2016 has been crowned.” (…) The crown for the excited winner, Anna Grinis, was awarded by the prime minister’s wife, Sara Netanyahu. The small item on Walla is 263 words long, 81 of them uttered by Mrs. Netanyahu. There are no fewer than five pictures of her, four of them taken and disseminated by the Government Press Office. This public body is being shamelessly exploited to promote the Netanyahus and to provide PR for them. (…) The item about the Holocaust survivors’ beauty pageant was posted in the Society and Welfare section of the site, and entitled “An exciting moment.” Apparently the excitement – or the shame – were so great that nobody could be found who was willing to append his byline to the item, and it appeared with the credit “Walla news staff.” On the other hand, maybe there really wasn’t any need for a byline. The item contains, word for word, the text posted by Sara Netanyahu on the Israeli prime minister’s own Facebook page, and in it she quoted her greetings to the participants in the competition. The five pictures are also there, below her words. (…) There’s no difference any more. The Government Press Office, Walla, the prime minister’s official Facebook page – they’re all working in the service of a single objective. Along with Israel Hayom, of course. (…) An item on the subject was published on Monday in Israel Hayom. Everything is connected. It’s no wonder that Netanyahu doesn’t want to deal with public broadcasting. Only one question remains open: Isn’t only five pictures from such an important ceremony an insult to the memory of the six million?
Uri Misgav, HAA, 02.11.16
Do we really need public broadcasting?
The latest brouhaha surrounding the decision of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to stop the establishment of the new Israeli Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) and leave the old Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA) as is, has been humongous. (…) One might think that the decision really threatens Israeli democracy and moves Israel towards fascism. (…) Democracy is not being threatened – at least no more than an unsupervised public media outlet that demands complete freedom from public control. (…) The IBC was formed on a post-Zionist basis. It disconnected the public corporation paid for by the taxpayers from any public influence on it. (…) The new IBC, just like the old IBA, does not give a hoot about public opinion. It makes the decisions for us, and in the old Bolshevik bosses-know-it-all style. (…) The mantra is that Israel needs a public broadcaster. But why? For more than 20 years, Israel Media Watch’s monitoring of the IBA showed unequivocally that it was a fiefdom that abrogated power unto itself, avoiding oversight of its activities. It did not represent the public interest and worse, it sought to manage the news rather than report it. (…) The public suffers silently, but the IBA couldn’t care less. It freely spends our money. (…) Do we really need a public broadcaster that competes unfairly with private stations? It receives public funding and so can afford to take less for advertising. (…) For more than 20 years, we thought that the good outweighs the bad. Israel could benefit from public broadcasting, but only if it is truly public and caring of the public. Sadly, this is a pipe dream. Israel’s public broadcasters are incapable of providing us with fair, pluralistic, Zionist and Jewish-oriented programming. They are not willing to internalize that they are public servants. (…)
Yisrael Medad, Eli Pollak, JPO, 09.11.16
The media is with the Left
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the report aired on investigative journalism program “Uvda” was harsh, perhaps too harsh, on journalist Ilana Dayan. But equally stunning was the reaction the journalists’ crowd had to Netanyahu’s remarks. (…) most of the press is left-wing. (…) Every election campaign since 1996, and between elections, too. (…) The election results came in and the media was in shock. (…) Netanyahu’s remarks were strong, but they contained truth: The media is Leftist and also hypocritical. (…) In a democratic state, anyone who doesn’t like a newspaper can simply not read it; and anyone who doesn’t like a television channel can flip to the next one. That is freedom of expression and freedom of choice. But they wanted to close down Israel Hayom — by way of the law, no less — and those same knights of freedom, who speak constantly about free expression, most of them supported that bill in the Knesset. The lawmakers legislated and their friends in the media applauded them. (…) Netanyahu was democratically elected. In the next election, the nation will once again decide. Prime ministers are not immune to making mistakes or to being the subject of warranted criticism, but in a democratic state, neither is the press.
Itsik Saban, IHY, 09.11.15
Delving into the psychological aspects of the Netanyahu phenomenon
(…) Benjamin Netanyahu’s anomalous reaction to the report by the Israel Channel 2 television investigative journalism series “Uvda” (“Fact”) on the conduct of the Prime Minister’s Office (…) provide an opportunity delve into certain still-undeciphered psychological aspects of the Netanyahu phenomenon. (…) Netanyahu’s unsettled relations with the media are another expression of a deep-seated and painful conflict he has with every truth (…). Listening to the raving of a madman, one asks whether his words have any connection to reality. Listening to Netanyahu, one is tempted to ask whether there is such a thing as reality. (…) A full comprehension of the attraction this conflict holds for him and his supporters requires knowledge of the concept of perversion. (…) Perversion as a way of thinking is in constant conflict both with dependence on other people and with the separate existence, independent from our wishes, of the good and the proper. (…) Perversion is also in deep conflict with the tension between how things are and how they appear to be (…) perversion denies the importance of the distinction between wishful thinking and reality. Of the psychotic one can say that reality is too painful for him to bear; whereas in the perverted mental posture it is truth, not reality, that is under attack. Netanyahu’s statement of reaction to the “Uvda” segment showed him for what he is: a sane and absolutely abnormal person in his relation to the truth. (…) The performance of her reading Netanyahu’s response faithfully reflected the gripping power that perversion can exercise. Ask the pornography addicts. They know something is really not right here – but how difficult it is for them to stop taking part in it.
Eran Rolnik, HAA, 11.11.16
Selection of Articles
An outcast even in death
(…) Ze’evi was a child of this land. He spoke in elegant Hebrew, and he fought for Israel in every way. He was a fighter and a scholar (…). His knowledge of Israel’s geography and history was phenomenal. (…) Ze’evi continued to be an outcast because of his views. An IDF general and government minister who dedicated his life to the nation and the country and never won over the crowd. Not even when he was murdered in 2001. He had proposed encouraging Palestinian emigration to neighboring countries using financial incentives. Voluntary population transfer. If he had encouraged the transfer (…) of Jewish settlers, they would have named roads and hospitals after him. Since the 2005 disengagement from Gush Katif, there are no serious right-wingers talking about population transfer, but among the Left, they continue to demand the transfer of third-generation settlers. Ze’evi cannot respond to the reports on “Uvda” (which raised allegations of rape and intimidation), and there is no body that is authorized to investigate him. The reports were an excuse to speak about him in his death as they spoke about him in life. (…) The opposition this week displayed truly low behavior when it boycotted the state ceremony in memory of a government minister who was murdered due to his role and his views. (…)
Emily Amrousi, IHY, 03.11.16
HAA = Haaretz
JED = JediothAhronoth / Ynetnews
JPO = Jerusalem Post
IHY = Israel HaYom
TOI = Times of Israel
GLO = Globes
Published: November 2016
Dr. Werner Puschra,
Leiter der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel