Steven Plaut

I am writing to ask for your help in defending free speech in Israel from the malicious assault upon it by Israel's far-Leftist extremists in league with Arab anti-Israel radicals.

Free speech in Israel is inadequately protected in law, and it is defended with increasing political selectiveness. Under selective free speech, the most seditious behavior of far leftists and Arab militants is protected speech, but any criticism of these same extremists is "libelous". Anti-Oslo dissidents are routinely investigated and prosecuted for "incitement", "racism", and other "crimes" related to their speech. There has not been a single case in which a Jewish leftist or Arab anti-Israel extremist was convicted of "incitement": not for inciting to violence, justifying terror, or anti-Jewish racism.

Moreover, after Moshe Feiglin, a Jewish anti-Oslo activist, blocked a road during a protest, he was indicted and convicted of "sedition". Blocking roads is a common protest tactic in Israel but no one else has been prosecuted for it! In part, the selective enforcement of free speech protection is consistent with the "judicial activism" ideology long promoted in Israel by its Supreme Court justices. Political biases permeate the judicial system, including the Prosecutor's Offices.

A tactic being used against freedom of speech is the filing by leftists of malicious "libel suits" as harassment. This is a clear and present threat to Israeli democracy. Because Israel has no formal constitution, it has no "First Amendment" that can be used to strike down such assaults against free expression.

Over the past few years, an Israeli extremist professor has been attempting to recruit the court system as a tool for suppressing freedom of speech. Neve Gordon of Ben Gurion University has devoted his energies to denouncing Israel as a fascist, apartheid state, one practicing "state terrorism", in every forum imaginable. His anti-Israel articles have been reprinted on Nazi web sites, including that of deported Canadian Nazi Ernst Zundel, as well as on Islamist web sites. Gordon led a campaign of defamation against his own army commander, Gen Aviv Kohavi, accusing him falsely of being a "war criminal". Gordon’s actions formed the basis for an attempt in the United Kingdom to indict Kohavi, forcing Kohavi to abandon plans to study there as a private person. Gordon has also justified terrorist violence against Jews.

Gordon served as a "human shield" for Arafat and for the wanted terrorist murderers being hidden in Arafat's offices a few years back, including those who had assassinated an Israeli cabinet minister. Gordon entered Ramallah illegally with the "international anarchists" from International Solidarity Movement and similar groups to try to prevent Israeli anti-terror operations, to interfere with attempts by the IDF at apprehending those wanted murderers, and was arrested at least once for this. He was photographed in the Israeli media embracing Arafat while Arafat was refusing to turn over the murderers of the cabinet minister. Maariv denounced the "human shields" groups to which Gordon belonged as "traitors" (Maariv's term).

Gordon also has a long track record of endorsing Norman Finkelstein (described by the ADL as a Holocaust Denier). Gordon has largely endorsed Finkelstein's political views, including Finkelstein's horrific book on the Holocaust. Finkelstein, by the way, denounces the very existence of Israel, endorses Hizbollah and other anti-Israel terror, endorses Hamas, and at the University of California at Irvine recently declared publicly that Israel had perpetrated genocide against Arabs. In his article, Gordon compared Finkelstein ethically to the Prophets of the Bible. Gordon has also issued statements identifying with the "heroic" nuclear spy and traitor Mordecai Vanunu. He has endorsed countless anti-Israel petitions and statements, including one claiming Israel was planning to conduct Nazi-like atrocities against Arabs the moment that American troops entered Iraq to topple Saddam.

Three years ago, Gordon decided to launch a malicious legal assault against free speech and democracy in Israel. He filed a SLAPP-style "libel suit" against me because I had criticized his political behavior and opinions. SLAPP suits are malicious suits filed for purposes of suppressing free speech and are illegal in most states in the US. But, in Israel they are not.

Specifically, I had earlier harshly denounced Gordon's endorsements of Finkelstein and I had labeled the group to which Gordon belonged – the one that served as "human shields" for the terrorists - as "Judenrat wannabes". That was because – like the Judenrat – they were self-appointed "representatives" of Jews serving as "liaisons" for those seeking to murder Jews.

Gordon's suit claimed these criticisms of his political activities were "libelous". But given his own track record of libeling people (he routinely labels all Israeli politicians he does not like "murderers" and "war criminals"), including his campaign against General Kohavi, and given what he writes about Israel, such a complaint coming from Gordon was ludicrous.

Gordon decided to go "venue shopping." While neither he nor I live in the jurisdiction of the Nazareth court, Gordon filed his suit there, knowing full-well that nearly all the judges in that court are Arabs, including judges with extremist anti-Israel political positions. The venue shopping tactic worked. The case was assigned to an Arab woman judge, one whose husband is a close sidekick and political crony of Azmi Bishara. The judge refused to recuse herself. (Bishara is the Arab Knesset Member who has called for Israel's eradication while on an illegal visit to Syria and who also endorsed Hizbollah terror attacks against Israel.)

The suit, referred to in the press as the "David Irving Trial of Israel", because of the parallels with Irving's tactics in suing Deborah Lipstadt for "libel" for calling him a Holocaust Denier, dragged on for well over three years. In the judgment, while dismissing many of Gordon's claims, the Arab woman judge nevertheless issued a ruling claiming that two or three of the statements I had published about Gordon's politics constitute "libel". The supposedly libelous statements of mine were my use of the pejorative "Judenrat wannabe" to describe the group of extremists that were engaged in the criminally illegal entrance into Ramallah followed by their serving as "human shields" and my denunciation of Gordon's endorsements of Finkelstein's positions. Finally, I had written that at the time of the "human shield" incident, Gordon's publication record consisted largely of populist political propaganda in extremist magazines. Gordon's professional resume had been published on the Ben Gurion University web site and I simply reviewed its contents. All these statements constituted "libel" according to the judge.

While totally ignoring all of Gordon's own political extremism, anti-Israel fanaticism, ties with anti-Semites, and illegal interference with the Israeli army's anti-terror operations, the judge declared that all of Gordon's actions, writings, and behavior are protected speech, but harsh denunciation of them and criticism of his political behavior by me constitutes "libel". I was reminded of some Soviet court rulings.

The judge's political orientation was made clear in the ruling where she wrote that illegal interference with military anti-terror operations by anti-Israel protesters is "a legitimate form of protest," but denouncing such pro-terror activists as "Judenrat wannabe" is libelous. In paragraph 24 of the ruling, the judge openly endorsed “alternative” views of the Holocaust, clearly meaning Finkelstein’s. That indeed was the main theme of the entire ruling. [Editor’s note: Judge Nadaff wrote: “At times we are witness to the phenomenon in which some people ’dare’ to reexamine the Holocaust...It is impossible and improper to turn the Holocaust into some sort of ‘taboo’ subject, about which people may not comment, think beyond, investigate or analyze unless it is within the framework of the consensus and the ‘permissible,’ as the defendant claims.”]
To grasp the enormity of this ruling, imagine that the British court had actually found for David Irving and convicted Deborah Lipstadt of "libel" for denouncing him. The Nazareth ruling is an open assault against freedom of speech in Israel for non-leftists and will serve as precedent for any anti-Israel extremist in Israel who wishes to recruit a court to suppress freedom of speech for non-leftists. All such a person now need do is run to Nazareth and file a political SLAPP "libel suit" and hope for a biased judge.

Because of the enormous implications of all this, it is crucial that the ruling be overturned on appeal. That however is expensive and not simple. A first appeal would be heard at the same Nazareth court, before an appeals panel, and politics could play a role there. If that appeal failed, the next appeal would go to Israel's Supreme Court, where my guess is that it would be summarily overturned.

The judgment against me issued by the Nazareth judge grants Gordon about $18,000 in "damages." In the ruling, the judge agreed that Gordon never showed he suffered any material damages from what I had written about him, but assigns damages to him anyway, and also hits me with an additional $3,000 in court costs. All that of course is above and beyond my own legal costs.

At this point, the suit is only marginally about me personally and is mainly about whether freedom of speech can be subdued in Israel using malicious prosecution and SLAPP tactics, or whether the court system will put a stop to such things once and for all.

That is why it is so important to fight this all the way through the appeals process. This however is quite expensive. I estimate that I need to raise about $35,000 to continue this battle for freedom of speech in Israel. My own personal resources were stretched by the first trial round (bear in mind that Israeli professors make about $2000 a month).

The stakes at play in this suit are enormous and carry important implications for the future of Israeli democracy.

Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to Outpost, is professor of economics at Haifa University. The above article is an edited version of Plaut’s lengthier account. Because AFSI agrees that it is crucial that this court challenge to free speech in Israel be overturned, we are setting up a fund for the Plaut appeal. If you wish to contribute make out your check to AFSI noting that it is earmarked for the Plaut fund.