The Reut Institute sent their “National Security Team” for a whole year in London; conducted interviews with over 150 people (“experts and activists from a range of fields”); Studied biology, economics, terrorism, the internet and Frank Sinatra. All this in order to investigate the BDS movement. They wrote a report, mouthfully titled “Building a Political Firewall against the Assault on Israel’s Legitimacy: London as a Case Study” and this is their conclusion:
Hamas Did It Because They Want to Destroy Israel!
132. The Resistance Network [“…led by Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah”] and the Delegitimization Network [a.k.a “the BDS movement”] use the Palestinian issue as a pretext – Their actions are not motivated by a desire to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population or to achieve peace, but to eventually escalate the conflict to advance Israel’s elimination. [p. 65]
The first thing to wonder, I suppose, is if you’re gonna launch an investigation and reach a conclusion, which you started off with, which was wrong to begin with, how does that constitute “a mode of constant learning and adaptation” [p. 3]?
There’s nothing new in the Reut report (aside from the fact that we know exactly what’s bugging the government). As you can see from the above quote, they are still admitting that Israel is controlling the Palestinian people, however, as always, with Zionists, something goes wrong in the conclusion portion of the logic-exercise:
11. The logic of delegitimization stems from a rejection of Israel’s existence, and therefore cannot be made to disappear by policy or public relations (PR). Hence, our working assumption is that neither changing Israel’s policies nor improving PR will suffice in the battle against delegitimization, although both can have a significant impact in this context. In fact, credible and consistent commitment by Israel to ending the control over the Palestinian population and to integration and equality of Israel’s Arabs citizens is essential for success among liberal and progressive circles. [p.15]
It’s the Premise, Stupid!
No matter how many times we try to bring it to their attention that BDS is a Palestinian civil society, cross-partisan initiative, it seems that people who follow the logic of “security” just can’t adapt to the idea that brown people are capable of complex thought and successful implementation of said thoughts, unless they’re trying to annihilate white people and their “freedom”/”way of life”/”democracy”. Hence, the Reut Institute team of experts- very fond of the activity of phrase-coining– can’t get enough of their catchy turn of phrase “Red-Green alliance” (which, I’m sorry to inform them, has already been taken). This premise is one that casts the radical left in the part of “useful idiot”, under manipulation of “the evil Islamist”:
84. Hamas supporters actively participate in, and sometimes initiate, the tactical partnerships that consolidate the Red-Green Alliance. Today, Islamists who find common cause with Hamas are deeply enmeshed in coalitions, partnerships, and cooperative initiatives with a range of radical left elements. These ventures enhance pro-Hamas individuals’ and organizations’ ability to disguise their radical Islamist agenda, and enable them to influence campaigns waged against Israel [p. 44]… Despite the marginal political standing of the Red-Green Alliance, it has achieved significant global impact by enlisting support from the European and North American liberal progressive elite circles… [p. 25]”
How did Reut get it so wrong, even when it manages to identify activists by name and political affiliation? (I believe the phrase was “outing-naming-shaming” [pp. 18, 49, 51]) Had it paid attention to its own subjects of investigation (p. 5), it could have easily found the major flaw in its premise (not to mention it wouldn’t have mistaken Intifada-Palestine for Electronic Intifada… confusing, I know…):
Unfortunately, there has been no indication, based on my reading of many statements made by Hamas leaders, of a clear understanding within the movement either of the apartheid nature of the State of Israel or of the tools used by the South African anti-apartheid movement. One such tool is the international boycott campaign, without which the apartheid regime would not have ended. This demonstrates Hamas’s failure to understand the role of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS). As a recent report by the Israel-based Reut Institute indicates, even the Israelis themselves are concerned about the momentum the BDS movement is gaining. There is no statement whatsoever, either in public speeches of Hamas officials or in its literature, which indicates an understanding of these efforts which, as Reut claimed, served to “delegitimize Israel” and “pose a threat to its very existence.”
It’s the Mother of All Zionist Premises, Stupid!
Putting Hamas aside, there’s another basic premise in the Reut Institute report, which fogs their view:
Reut does its very best not to bring up the word too often, in this report. Maybe its research is starting to conclude that the word sounds a wee-bit too much like “wolf!”, nowadays. Whatever the case may be, regarding the report it’s not the quantity, but the quality that counts; On page 5 of the report, Reut lays out its basic premise about the motives of the BDS movement, in the form of a “glossary” of “concepts”– concepts that haven’t changed since Ben-Guriyon:
Fundamental Delegitimization / Anti-Zionism
Negation of Israel’s right to exist or of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination based on philosophical or political arguments. When certain conditions are met – such as when demonization or blatant double standards (see below) are employed – fundamental
delegitimization represents a form of anti-Semitism.
Double Standards / Singling Out
Applying unique standards to Israel that are harsher than the common international practice, as a basis for expressing disproportional criticism; applying a general principle of international law to Israel, while ignoring similar or worse violations by others.
Presenting Israel as being systematically, purposefully, and extensively cruel and inhumane, thus denying the moral legitimacy of its existence. Examples include association with Nazism or apartheid or accusations of blatant acts of evil.
So to make it easier on the eyes, allow me to translate (Zionish to English dictionary sold separately):
“ delegitimization” = “criticism; applying a general principle of international law to Israel” = anti-Semitism
So all this terror, of course, must be answered, right? The Reut Institute has got just the thing for you:
The objective is simple: Delegitimizing delegitimization [p. 1]
This isn’t just one of those catchy Reut phrases. Reut has a plan:
… Meeting the challenge of Israel’s delegitimization requires a loosely coordinated and orchestrated response, sometimes even taking a personal or non-public form. Therefore, all parties
will have to leave their comfort zones: Israel will have to let Jewish communities lead the counter-attack in places, such as London, that require nuance and cultural sensitivity; and Jewish institutions will have to allow for innovative thinking, new tools, and aggressive experimentation that usually takes place outside of the established community. All parties will have to come to terms with the idea that it takes ‘all instruments in the orchestra’ to win this fight. Importantly, critics from the political left, because they represent liberal values, are also an invaluable voice in delegitimizing Israel’s delegitimization, notwithstanding their common criticism of the Jewish community’s traditional institutions and the policies of the State of Israel. [p. 2]
A big Mazal Tov to the Reut institute, they have finally figured out grassroots activism!
Fascists Can’t Grassroots
Not because they physically can’t (most obviously Zionism is phenomenal in moving crowds to utilize grassroots tactics), but because popular activity in the name of a state is not grassroots- it’s manufactured consent (in Israel’s case, caused by massive Hasbara). If you are favored by the state because you toe its party line, and thus have its support financially or “just” verbally, you are no longer grassroots. Rather you are an “independent” agent of the state, and- similarly to Im Tirtzu- most probably won’t stay that way for long. Speaking of which, allow me my Perez Hilton moment: Reut has been seen cavorting with Jewish Agency.
Interestingly, the Reut institute is notably exited about grassroot tactics (a.k.a. “social change”). It went all the way into “network theory” in order to understand normal societal functions beyond repressive governments:
35. In the Political Firewall document, Reut showed that Israel’s delegitimizers are organized as a network (see Chapter 3, pp. 42-44). In this respect, they are no different from many other systems, in areas as diverse as biology, economics, terrorism, and the internet, that are also organized as networks and operate according to similar principles.
In a nutshell, they operate within a flat and non-hierarchical structure without a command-and-control center and are diverse and highly resilient. Their actors possess independence of action.
In other words, the assault on Israel’s legitimacy is not the outcome of a ‘headquarters-based conspiracy.’ Rather, Israel’s delegitimization is driven by a network that shares a common logic; promotes common strategies, campaigns, and agendas; and often explicitly cooperates through key global activists and mechanisms. [p.23]
But rather than become a true NGO (note to Reut: that’s non-governmental organization), Reut does that incredible leap of logic, it’s by now so reputed for, and enlists (p. 2):
We are here—ready, trained, equipped and motivated—to support the Government of Israel as it navigates the course of the future of our nation and people.
That was 2005, when fundamentalist Zionism was still en vogue. In 2010 Reut founder and president, Gidi Grinstein (after enjoying one too many accolades [p.2] and completely infiltrating the Knesset [pp. 2,3,9,16,18,22,32,40,]) refined his vision of “21 Century Zionism” to fit the “North American liberal progressive elite circles” more snugly (bolds by me):
The Reut Institute is ready, trained, equipped, and motivated to become Israel’s leading agent of change.
After studying over three reports and a couple of Reut webpages, interviewing absolutely no one, drinking one too many cups of Arabic coffee, and all this without leaving my house (definitely not to Piccadilly Circus), this is my conclusion:
The government of Israel has got an extra-governmental coup on their hands and it favors a two-state solution!
By the end of 2006 we aspire to become a leading non-governmental force in the world of shaping Israel’s long-term future. [Reut Institute, Annual Report 2005, p.14]
By 2020, the Reut model will have impacted many major strategic units in the Government of Israel and its agencies, on the national and regional levels, as well as within civil society and in the Jewish world. Specifically, by 2020 we hope to have impacted the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, the Planning Branch of the Israel Defense Forces and other security
services, as well as civilian ministries; By 2020, Reut will have established and will manage a network of nonprofits that address fundamental gaps. [Reut Institute, Annual Report 2010, p.26]
And after infiltrating both government and civil society, they will take over the world!
By 2020, Reut will have been recognized around the world as an innovator in the area of strategy that is consistently ahead of its curve. Its model, structure, and process-based approach will be emulated by many other organizations; [Reut Institute, Annual Report 2010, p.26]
Woops! There I go being antisemetic again…