What do the following have in common?
1. The recent anti-BDS bill which passed in the Knesset.
2. A proposal to give Israeli MKs some say in Israeli Supreme Court nominations.
3. Israeli nursery school students singing the national anthem.
Well, it depends on who you ask.
If you’re Harriet Sherwood, and you’re trying desperately to advance the narrative of an Israeli society moving to the extreme right, all three are not separate phenomena but interconnected political components which are part of a larger whole.
Sherwood’s latest dispatch, Israel’s boycott ban draws fire from law professors, which includes a requisite photo of a furious, downright scary, looking Netanyahu, returns to the political terrain she visited only yesterday - which included a quote suggesting that the anti-BDS law was evidence that “Fascism at its worst is raging [in Israel]“ - noting that, while the Prime Minister defended the bill, it continues to be condemned by an increasing number of prominent Israelis, before pivoting to the following (related?) legislation.
“Two rightwing members of the Knesset announced on Wednesday they would present a further bill allowing the Knesset to veto supreme court appointments.”
While Sherwood acknowledges that this proposal didn’t have wide support and would likely not be adopted, her attempt to contextualize that legislative proposal as part of a wider right-wing trend is spurious.
In the U.S., for instance, while the President proposes nominees for the Supreme Court, they must be approved by the Senate (first the Judiciary Committee, then the full Senate) – one of the “checks and balances” which represent an important component of America’s democracy.
In Israel’s current system the President appoints Supreme Court nominees upon the advice of the Judges Nominations Committee – which is composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court, two Ministers (one of them being the Minister of Justice), two Members of the Knesset and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association.
It’s hard to understand how vesting in elected members of the Knesset the power to veto a Supreme Court nominee could be considered illiberal, or right wing.
Finally, her concluding paragraph contains information even more tangential to the story she’s ostensibly reporting.
“In a separate development, nursery schools in Israel are to be required to raise the Israeli flag and sing the national anthem at least once a week to strengthen children’s Zionist values.”
Unless Sherwood meant to say, “In a separate AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED development”, I honestly don’t know what ties in the last passage with rest of the report.
But, of course, I’m not being completely sincere, as I fully understand that she’s trying to characterize the new requirement by the education ministry as another sign of Israel’s lurch to the far right.
I hope I can be forgiven for, again, citing my own background in a quite democratic country to contextualize this completely innocuous “development”, but, in the public school I went to in Philadelphia, we recited the Pledge of Allegiance, while placing our hands on our hearts and facing the American Flag, every day – a national custom deemed helpful in inculcating students with important civic values, such as patriotism, and has been controversial only on the fringes of American society.
Moreover, as I read that last add-on I decided to have some fun and see if I could top Sherwood with an even more egregious effort to tie together a fact completely irrelevant to the anti-BDS legislation.
How about this as an alternative ending to Sherwood’s story to replace the throw away passage about Israeli children being “required” to sing the national anthem once a week?
In a separate development, Guardian News and Media (GNM) announced that The Guardian and its sister paper, The Observer, had lost £33m in cash terms last year after failing to staunch losses that ran to £34.4m the year before.
What’s the connection? Exactly. Absolutely nothing.
Related articles
- Harriet Sherwood, and the Guardian’s continuing ideologically inspired sins of omission (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood’s post critical of Israel’s proposed anti-BDS legislation fails to note EU and US precedents (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood and the political hysteria of the Guardian Left (cifwatch.com)
- On Sherwood’s implosion (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian contributor characterizes proponents of Israel’s anti-BDS bill as supporters of “totalitarianism” (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood story in Guardian quotes Richard Falk in accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood erroneously places Knesset on Arab Farmland (cifwatch.com)
- Fool’s Prophecy: Harriet Sherwood’s latest compelling tale of Israeli oppression…that hasn’t yet happened (cifwatch.com)






17 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 14, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Michael
Yasher Koach yet again Adam. As a fellow American, I also was raised to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and that was in Miami, my corner (quite literally) of the US, without the background of revolutionary history that you had in Philadelphia and also perennially with my classmates from all over Latin America.
I wonder if the British have similar laws or mores about G.S.T.Q./K. I doubt that Sherwood would have a problem with it if they do.
July 14, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Andy Gill
In a separate development I found that the Jewish national anthem goes:
As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart,
With eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion,
Then our hope – the two-thousand-year-old hope – will not be lost:
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.
And in another separate development it was revealed that the Palestinian “national anthem” goes:
With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my revenge
With the longing in my blood for my land and my home
I have climbed the mountains and fought the wars
I have conquered the impossible, and crossed the frontiers
With the resolve of the winds and the fire of the guns
And the determination of my nation in the land of struggle
Palestine is my home, Palestine is my fire,
Palestine is my revenge and the land of endurance.
Sorry, what was that about fascism at it’s worst?
July 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Ariadne
And it’s full of lies anyway! Climbed, fought! Lied, begged and bombed, correctly.
July 14, 2011 at 3:09 pm
MindTheCrap
If you can’t connect the dots, Adam, why should Harriet ?
A proposal to give Israeli MKs some say in Israeli Supreme Court nominations.
Why don’t you check the makeup of the committee that currently selects Supreme Court justices? If Harriet had written that sentence you would have devoted an entire article to chastising her for not doing basic research.
July 14, 2011 at 3:12 pm
MindTheCrap
According to Basic Law: the Judiciary, established in 1984, The committee has nine members, as follows:
- Justice Minister – Chairman
- Cabinet Minister, chosen by the Cabinet.
- Two Knesset Members, chosen by the Knesset (Since 1992 they usually appoint one member from the coalition and one from the opposition).
- Two members of the Bar Association (Usually selected by the two largest factions in the bureau).
- The Chief Justice, and two other judges of the Supreme Court (replaced every three years by the panel of judges, the selection is usually by seniority).
ummmm – that’s 4 out of 9 who are Knesset members….
July 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Hadar Sela
Yes, MTC, and the members of the Supreme Court currently hold -for all intents and purposes – the right to veto that committee’s decisions.
May I suggest watching the interview with Professor Gideon Sapir of Bar Ilan University from today’s ‘London & Kirschenbaum’
Here at around 19 mins.
http://lnk.nana10.co.il/
July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Abtalyon
All these proposals have one aim; to exploit the temporary right-wing political majority in the Knesset to upset the checks and balances of the Basic Laws of Israel and rig them to provide an advantage over the centre-left parties. How else can one interpret the proposal to form a Knesset committee chaired by an MK from Yisrael Beiteinu to look into foreign funding of allegedly left-oriented NGO’s only, similar investigation of right-oriented groups being excluded? Or the proposal to give the Knesset veto powers over appointments to the independent High Court judiciary?
Adam Levick: stop playing the innocent bystander. It doesn’t fool anybody.
July 14, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Adam Levick
In what way am I playing the “innocent bystander”? Honesty, please elaborate.
July 15, 2011 at 6:06 am
JerusalemMite
Adam. As far as possible, political selection of supreme court judges should be kept as far away from the selection process as possible. The right wing members of this government want more political evaluation of possible supreme court judges.
That’s a very negative thing.
True that the US has a lot of political intervention in the selection process as the candidates, proposed by the President, have to be approved by some committee composed of politicians.
Fact is that until now, the present system has worked very well with a select group of ;learned’ people being appointed. (Except Akiva
Rubinstien who is a complete washout but, being a weak personality, was ‘selected’ to sit on one of the ‘hovesh kipa’ seats.
The fact is that Israeli Supreme Court decisions are as ‘holy’ in the whole rational world as they are in Israel. Politicians playing around with the selection process will weaken that very valuable national asset.
The UK method of supreme judge selection seems shrouded in secrecy which is not positive at all.
The new law about supporting a boycott of Israel is a weakening of Israeli democracy. However, we are not on the abyss of totalitarianism.
Yet.
July 15, 2011 at 10:27 am
Abtalyon
You wrote thus;
“It’s hard to understand how vesting in elected members of the Knesset the power to veto a Supreme Court nominee could be considered illiberal, or right wing.”
The current selection and approval of Supreme Court judges is a joint decision involving members drawn from all three branches of government in Israel. Your comment is specious in suggesting that one branch, the Knesset, be given an additional voice, over and above that which it already has. And you claim that this is liberal? I call it rigging.
July 15, 2011 at 1:05 am
MindTheCrap
A proposal to give Israeli MKs some say …
There are four MKs on the commitee, including two cabinet ministers. “Some say” means that currently they have no say. Don’t you think you should correct your article to “more say” ?
July 15, 2011 at 1:11 am
MindTheCrap
Abtalyon is 100% correct, although “naive” would be the better word. You are treating this argument as a minor procedural issue, whereas everyone – left and right – understands the true motives and aims of this legislation. You proudly wave the “Israeli democracy / checks & balances” flag, but you are silent in the face of such a blatant and transparent attempt to destroy it.
Sometimes Harriet Sherwood is not the issue.
July 15, 2011 at 1:29 am
Larry Moonsong
Never mind Harriet Sherwood, what about the disgusting Harry’s Place. They are saying the same thing. Check it out here, it reads like something straight out of The Guardian or The Independent
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/07/15/down-but-not-out/
Harry’s Place long ago jumped the shark, and they have no problem routinely censoring comments from anybody and everybody who shows them up too much. A lot of anti-dhimmis like myself who used to post there, no longer can do so. Harry’s Place also doesn’t admit to this censorship, but it is there. I don’t mean censorship from BNP fascist types or Muslim extremists or leftwing anti-Semites, I mean censorship from middle-of-the-road centrists like myself who don’t buy into dhimmitude. We need a Harry’s Place watch section along with CIFWatch. Harry’s Place continues to scrape the bottom of the barrel, whilst pretending they are the ‘decent’ Left.
July 15, 2011 at 7:52 am
MindTheCrap
HarrysPlaceWatch ? LOL . Anyone who deviates once from the official party line will never be forgiven in the only democracy in the Middle East. What we need is a law that allows us to boycott these nefarious blog sites but doesn’t allow anyone to boycott sites like CifWatch. That is democracy in action !
July 15, 2011 at 5:03 am
The Guardian’s nasty little asides about Israel | Anne's Opinions
[...] commentary about the Guardian’s Israel correspondent Harriet Sherwood, and her striving to connect the dots of various aspects of Israeli political and social society. Thus she manages to combine in one [...]
July 15, 2011 at 5:05 am
anneinpt
Harriet Sherwood does it again. See my post here
July 15, 2011 at 8:53 am
Adam Levick
Thanks Anne! I caught that line about Israel’s “claim” that it’s their national dish and was considering mentioning it in some respect. I guess we’re lucky Sherwood didn’t accuse Israel of colonizing the falafel