BDS IN THE PEWS
|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.
Diakonia: An Analysis of Activities in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Diakonia is Sweden’s largest humanitarian NGO, receiving most of its budget from the Swedish government. Some of the organization’s programs appear to be genuine and important humanitarian projects. Diakonia’s Civil Society and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) programs overtly promote the Palestinian narrative, and fuel the conflict. Attributes “structural problems” in the conflict solely to the “continuing of the occupation,” the “building of the Wall,” and “the fragmentation of the Palestinian territory.” The IHL website promotes a so-called “right to resist” and delegitimizes Israel’s right to self defense.
War on Want (WoW) campaigns on Israeli-Palestinian issues, December 2008 – August 2009
Pathological politics: HRW’s “white flags” report
HRW’s allegation that Israeli forces deliberately killed Palestinian non-combatants who had surrendered is an incendiary moral indictment. Video and similar evidence that is inconsistent with the indictment is entirely missing from the HRW report. The report is based on inconsistent Palestinian testimony, claims copied from other NGOs, and irrelevant forensic “evidence.” In response to criticism, HRW issued a defensive press release that did not address the substantial flaws in its report. The inability to verify claims is inconsistent with definitive pronouncements on “war crimes” -- an accusation made 15 times in this report.
Absolutely Wrong: Analysis of HRW report, “Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles,” 30 June 2009
In “Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles,” HRW uses the term “war crimes” 7 times, and the alleged attacks are termed “unlawful.” The case is entirely speculative, but the conclusions are stated with absolute assurance, as if the evidence was totally clear. HRW emphasizes pseudo-technical and unfounded legal. Credible and verifiable evidence is not provided. Military experts challenged HRW’s “claims and assumptions about weapons and drones.” The text appears to reflect the authors’ lack of significant battlefield experience, particularly related to split-second decision making.
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 39 40 41 42 43 » Last