|Denmark Update - October 2009|
Amnesty International’s Goldstone Campaign, with a review of statements from other NGOs
Amnesty International has issued 15 statements in support of the Goldstone Mission. Members of the commission and its staff have conflicts of interest involving Amnesty. Diakonia, Trocaire, Amnesty-Europe, FIDH, Adalah, PCHR, and Al Haq have used the Goldstone report to bolster their calls for “war crimes” cases. Palestinian NGOs’ press release calling on states to “re-evaluate their relationship with Israel.” B’Tselem condemned the Israeli government for not cooperating with the Goldstone mission and “provided assistance to the investigative staff….”
Human Rights Watch: Selling Goldstone’s Indictment
HRW is leading the campaign to promote the widely criticized “Goldstone report” on the Gaza War, with close to thirty statements to date. Repeatedly equates Israel to Hamas, immorally compare its response to attacks on civilians to the genocide in Sudan, and falsely accuse Israel of “willfully” killing civilians and “deliberate infliction of suffering on civilians.” The close links between Goldstone and HRW continue to constitute a clear conflict of interest. HRW’s extensive media campaign diverts attention from the criticism and scandals that plague the organization.
House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report
Goldstone relies on statements, publications, and submissions from highly politicized and biased NGOs. This is inconsistent with the claim to have conducted a “fact finding mission.” By adopting the flawed methodologies, false claims, and distortions of international law from the NGOs, Goldstone renders his entire report and its conclusions invalid. The report includes more than 500 direct citations from NGOs that lack credibility. Goldstone and other members of the commission have conflicts of interest involving close links to HRW, Amnesty International, PCHR.
Made in Europe: How government funded NGOs shaped the Goldstone report
The Goldstone report is primarily based on statements, publications, and submissions from highly politicized and biased NGOs, many of which are funded by European governments. Beyond adopting the flawed methodologies and false claims, the funding provided for these NGOs links European governments to the Goldstone report, and its contribution to anti-Israel demonization. European-funded groups PCHR, Al Mezan, Al Haq, and Adalah – are also at the forefront of the “lawfare” campaigns that abuse the universal jurisdiction provisions in the legal codes of a number of Western countries using allegations of “war crimes.”
Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO “cut and paste”
The Goldstone report is primarily based on NGO statements, publications, and submissions – from B’tselem, PCHR, Al-Haq, HRW, and many others – copying the NGO biases, flawed methodology, and false claims. Following HRW and Amnesty, evidence of human shields is ignored. The report repeats NGO distortions of international law, including the false legal claim that Gaza remains occupied. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Goldstone’s report asserts that the “data provided by non-governmental sources with regard to the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent.”
HRW’s Credibility Gap: 14 Versions of the Abed Rabbo “White Flags” Incident
Expert or Ideologues?: HRW’s Defense of Marc Garlasco’s Nazi Fetish
In the wake of revelations that Marc Garlasco is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia, HRW has issued several defenses. Contrary to HRW´s claims: collecting Nazi Memorabilia is not an innocuous hobby, Garlasco´s hobby borders on the obsessive and flaunts Nazi symbolism, and he has authored a 430-page tome on Swastika-adorned Nazi-era medals. HRW’s attempt to characterize Garlasco as a serious military historian and to delete the obvious moral implications regarding someone so closely involved in serial condemnations of Israel is offensive and intolerable.
Experts or Ideologues: Systematic Analysis of Human Rights Watch
The Goldstone “Fact Finding” Mission and the Role of Political NGOs
The Goldstone Mission chose officials from radical anti-Israel NGOs to “testify”– including Al Haq, AIC, and the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP). The GCMHP representative used “Nazi” rhetoric. HRW has obsessively supported Goldstone, who was a member of HRW’s board. The process for the selection of witnesses are completely hidden, and some – including PCHR – were not made public. Seven NIF-funded Israeli NGOs claimed that Israel acted “punitive[ly]” and “deliberately and knowingly shelled civilian institutions.” The Mission has violated the London-Lund guidelines, lacking objectivity, transparency, neutrality, and professionalism.
First « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 » Last