Perhaps Btselem was an important element to have in Israeli society. Even when I was a soldier I respected the need for a watch group. However, over time the increasingly moved away from legitimate criticism, in favor of demonization of soldiers, Israelis, and Israel.

Today they have shown that they are no longer a rights group, but a political group that is against the state of Israel and the right of Jewish self-determination itself.

Their newest policy paper is an announcement that they have adopted a antagonistic mindset.
They claim that the entire history of Israel and all the policies and actions that occurred from it have stemmed from a principle of Jewish Supremacy. They of course mean Zionism, and I expect in future statements they will conflate the two.
Jewish Supremacy is a term long used by white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, and Antizionist groups as a talking point. Btselem has fully adopted it. It contends that Jews are racist supremacists seeking to oppress others. This is simply false framing, and is not a position held by many.
The idea that all the Israel does is under a single principle is inane to anyone who has met an Israeli. Firstly, it implies that politicians, different parties, different people, have been acting in accordance to a general plan. Israeli governments barely plan for the year.
But in all seriousness, ascribing a general will to a people is dangerous and harmful. I’m careful not to do the same to the Palestinians, because it is simply false. Even in different organizations, even like Hamas, there are competing ideologies and factions.
Saying there is an evil principle that defines Israelis and all of Israeli actions ignores all the competing factors in society, all the legitimate external and internal challenges, and dumbs it down to a false history of malicious will.
This is the same type of general malicious will that antisemites of all variant ascribe to all the Jewish people, and Btselem successfully taps into that in their final fall into antagonism.
Btselem loves generalizations in its new policy. It sees all of the southern Levant as the same thing so it can get away with sweeping generalizations and otherwise geo-graphically limited statements. It treats Gaza, Israel proper, and the disputed territories as the same.
Btselem blurs away the difference in circumstances, and completely removes the concept of citizenship for a more ambiguous concept. It claims that Gaza is part of Israel, and that it controls all aspects of it, despite that being markedly untrue from any administration standard.
Gaza has long been under control of Hamas. A blockade is not tantamount to administration. It’s not even enough to be considered military occupation, in situations where the Israel blinders aren’t on.
Saying the disputed territories is the same as a de facto hostile state, and the same as an established state, is simply disingenuous. Yes, it is under militarily administration, of course it operates under different rules, most of them being based heavily on International law.
It is not based on Israeli law. Israeli citizens are still subject to many Israeli laws regardless of where they are in the world. They don’t cease to be citizens, and in a place of Israeli administration more so. Israel cannot fully exert its system over these territories.
That would be annexation, and they would be upset if that was done. Moreover, these territories are supposed to be under delayed negotiation. That is the principle under which these territories operate, not some invented malicious will.
They should be advocating for resumption of those negotiations, facilitating talks, promoting policies that bring about final resolutions to the status. Instead they are demonizing. What will come of it? Not negotiating. Not peace talks. Only more polarization and attacks.

More from World

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...


2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see

3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result

4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...

5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
Watch the entire discussion if you have the time to do so. But if not, please make sure to watch Edhem Eldem summarizing ~150 years of democracy in Turkey in 6 minutes (starting on 57'). And if you can't watch it, fear not; I've transcribed it for you (as public service). Thread:


"Let me start by saying that I am a historian, I see dead people. But more seriously, I am constantly torn between the temptation to see patterns developing over time, and the fear of hasty generalizations and anachronistic comparisons. 1/n

"Nevertheless, the present situation forces me to explore the possible historical dimensions of the problem we're facing today. 2/n

"(...)I intend to go further back in time and widen the angle in order to focus on the confusion I  believe exists between the notions of 'state', 'government', and 'public institutions' in Turkey. 3/n

"In the summer of 1876, that's a historical quote, as Midhat Pasa was trying to draft a constitution, Edhem Pasa wrote to Saffet Pasa, and I quote in Turkish, 'Bize Konstitusyon degil enstitusyon lazim' ('It is not a constitution we need but institutions'). 4/n

You May Also Like

#தினம்_ஒரு_திருவாசகம்
தொல்லை இரும்பிறவிச் சூழும் தளை நீக்கி
அல்லல் அறுத்து ஆனந்தம் ஆக்கியதே – எல்லை
மருவா நெறியளிக்கும் வாதவூர் எங்கோன்
திருவாசகம் என்னும் தேன்

பொருள்:
1.எப்போது ஆரம்பித்தது என அறியப்படமுடியாத தொலை காலமாக (தொல்லை)

2. இருந்து வரும் (இரும்)


3.பிறவிப் பயணத்திலே ஆழ்த்துகின்ற (பிறவி சூழும்)

4.அறியாமையாகிய இடரை (தளை)

5.அகற்றி (நீக்கி),

6.அதன் விளைவால் சுகதுக்கமெனும் துயரங்கள் விலக (அல்லல் அறுத்து),

7.முழுநிறைவாய்த் தன்னுளே இறைவனை உணர்த்துவதே (ஆனந்த மாக்கியதே),

8.பிறந்து இறக்கும் காலவெளிகளில் (எல்லை)

9.பிணைக்காமல் (மருவா)

10.காக்கும் மெய்யறிவினைத் தருகின்ற (நெறியளிக்கும்),

11.என் தலைவனான மாணிக்க வாசகரின் (வாதவூரெங்கோன்)

12.திருவாசகம் எனும் தேன் (திருவா சகமென்னுந் தேன்)

முதல்வரி: பிறவி என்பது முன்வினை விதையால் முளைப்பதோர் பெருமரம். அந்த ‘முன்வினை’ எங்கு ஆரம்பித்தது எனச் சொல்ல இயலாது. ஆனால் ‘அறியாமை’ ஒன்றே ஆசைக்கும்,, அச்சத்துக்கும் காரணம் என்பதால், அவையே வினைகளை விளைவிப்பன என்பதால், தொடர்ந்து வரும் பிறவிகளுக்கு, ‘அறியாமையே’ காரணம்

அறியாமைக்கு ஆரம்பம் கிடையாது. நமக்கு ஒரு பொருளைப் பற்றிய அறிவு எப்போதிருந்து இல்லை? அதைச் சொல்ல முடியாது. அதனாலேதான் முதலடியில், ஆரம்பமில்லாத அஞ்ஞானத்தை பிறவிகளுக்குக் காரணமாகச் சொல்லியது. ஆனால் அறியாமை, அறிவின் எழுச்சியால், அப்போதே முடிந்து விடும்.