Breaking the Silence is an Israeli human rights organisation for combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada. It publishes the anonymous testimonies of soldiers in the occupied Palestinian territories. On Sunday, a court case against it will be heard. Breaking the Silence staff and its legal team say the legal moves not only pose a threat to the group but also threaten to ‘chill’ both free speech and human rights activism in Israel.
Magistrate’s Court Judge Eliana Danieli is to hear a petition by the state attorney that will use testimony or raw materials as evidence. The Guardian reports that it is ‘demanding that Breaking the Silence identify anonymous serving military personnel who have given it testimony relating to alleged crimes in the 2014 Gaza war.’ Writing in Haaretz, Amos Harel and Gili Cohen conclude that ‘such revelation will severely deter other soldiers from providing anonymous testimony. It is hard to escape the impression that this is precisely the state prosecutor’s long-term goal.’
The human right organisation has long been subject to attempts to silence them, including by the fascist movement Im Tirtzu and Israeli right-wing Ad Kan group. The latter is partially funded by the Samaria Settlers’ Committee, an extremist group that released a video portraying Breaking the Silence funders, NIF and other progressive organizations as a ‘hook-nosed Jew betraying Israel in exchange for European money.’ It also armed its members with hidden cameras in order to smear high-profile leftists, producing a report that was aired on Israeli Channel 2 in March, that Ad Kan said ‘revealed how Breaking the Silence, which claims to be a “human rights organization,” tried to gather classified intelligence about sensitive IDF operations along the Gaza border with Hamas.’
Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan of Jewish Home called the organization ‘a fifth column.’ While Israeli Knesset Speaker MK Yuli Edelstein of right-wing Likud warned in March that:
It’s time to say ‘enough’ to Breaking the Silence. As Speaker of the Knesset, I believe that the law enforcement authorities must investigate the matter and determine what sensitive information is in their hands and if, God forbid, they are making inappropriate use of it.
Not to be outdone, Israeli MK Eitan Cabel of the centre-left Zionist Union – which includes the Israeli Labour Party – said that:
the activities of Breaking the Silence, as revealed tonight, crossed a red line that should not be crossed. These are very serious findings which point to the systematic gathering of evidence against the army, against the state, against us. There is no choice but a police investigation.
At the time, Breaking the Silence CEO Yuli Novak, in response to the Channel 2 report, said ‘This is the work of several organizations that, alongside Israeli MKs from the Likud and Bayit Yehudi parties, are working to silence those who seek to criticize the government and the occupation.’
Sunday’s court hearing threatens to shut down its work, and is being viewed as a crucial test case for civil society. The Guardian reports that Lawyer Michael Sfard warned:
It is a judgment day for Breaking the Silence, and its continued ability to work. But I think it is also pivotal moment for Israeli civil society.
Breaking the Silence is also one of the main targets of a proposed new law that would hit the foreign funding of left-wing NGOs.
Via the Guardian‘s Peter Beaumont, in Jerusalem:
The latest moves against it began after the NGO published a hard-hitting report last year into the conduct of the 2014 conflict in Gaza, which contained a number of serious allegations of Israeli military misconduct in the prosecution of the war.
The case brought against it, with the support of military investigators and the new Israeli attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, seeks to compel the group to identify soldiers who gave testimony over relatively minor incidents including the theft of sunglasses and a tank damaging a civilian car.
Breaking the Silence’s work, however, has been based on a guarantee of anonymity for testifiers – claiming their reporting as covered by journalistic privilege. They argue that being compelled to identify witnesses would effectively shut them down.
One of the group’s founders, Yehuda Shaul, a former soldier himself, defended how it operated.
In the past we have provided more information on alleged crimes and abuses to military investigators than we have published on the cases. But the crucial Chinese wall is about defending the identity of our sources. It is not about preventing the possibility of investigation.
The court case is the latest chapter in what appears to be an increasingly vigorous campaign to limit the activities of, or silence, Breaking the Silence and other groups including B’Tselem.
That began in earnest in December when Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said Breaking the Silence would be banned from activities on Israeli military bases – although it does little work on them. A few days later, the far-right education minister, Naftali Bennett, made a similar statement regarding banning the group in the education system.
More sinister, claims the group, have been attempts to infiltrate it and provide false testimonies to discredit it, while it says there have been multiple efforts to hack into its database.
A bill that opponents say targets Israeli human rights groups critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians has also won initial approval in parliament with the support of rightwing parties.
Called a “transparency bill” by its sponsor, the far-right justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, the legislation would require NGOs – including Breaking the Silence – to give details of overseas donations in all their official publications if more than half their funding comes from foreign governments or bodies such as the European Union.
The group was informed in January it should comply with a court order – made in its absence – to provide the identities of testifiers from its Gaza war report. It appealed against the initial order but it is now facing a new hearing next week in a court in Petah Tikvah.
Despite the criticism, Israeli government officials defended the legal moves to attempt to compel the group to give up sources.
The state prosecutor said:
The state of Israel believes there is public interest of the highest degree to investigate the suspicions against the suspect and against others involved.
An Israeli military spokesperson added:
In order to advance the investigation [into suspected crimes] there was a need to receive the unabridged material that Breaking the Silence documented.
Defending the group’s position, Sfard, who represents Breaking the Silence and other Israeli human rights groups, told the Guardian:
Society has different institutions with different roles. It has law enforcement agencies whose role is to investigate and bring justice. There are other institutions like the media and human rights groups and their role is different. Breaking the Silence was created to provide Israeli society and to a degree the international community, information on what Israeli soldiers are doing in service of the occupation. There needs to be firewall between the information it collects and law enforcement agencies.
The group’s executive director, Yuli Novak, went even further, accusing the Israeli state prosecutor of “taking an unprecedented and worrying step that endangers the organisation and its work by trying to force us to reveal witnesses’ identities.
It is even more puzzling and bothersome that the attorney’s demand is part of an investigation of junior soldiers for offences that are not severe, in the very least, that were described in testimonies or took place in Protective Edge [Israel’s 2014 military operation in Gaza], and as far as we know have nothing to do with killing or causing injury.
The honourable work of Zochrot (as Breaking the Silence is known in Israel) in recording testimony from veterans of the conflict is a first step towards the reconciliation process that needs to develop if Israeli Jews and Palestinians are to co-operate in the future.
Without such co-operation, there is no foreseeable prospect of a two-state solution or a one state solution. What does that leave?
Therefore it is ever more imperative that the Labour Party and the UK are free to evolve our own fair and realistic foreign diplomacy in relation to this strife. That can happen only if there is full and knowledgeable debate. The present attack on free speech on Israel and Palestine obstructs this. Inadvertently or by design? And who benefits?
Correction: Zochrot (“Remembrance”) is a different group. I apologise for my mistake. My remarks on the attack on Breaking The Silence are not affected by this. They record testimony from veterans who regret their acts in this conflict. Acknowledging wrong remains the first step on the necessary path to reconciliation.