BDS IN THE PEWS
|“Human Rights First”: Without political bias|
Human Rights First (HRF), based in New York and Washington, D.C., serves as an example of a human rights NGO which generally provides proportionate analysis and advocacy on the Middle East. In contrast to politicized groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, HRF presents a measured appraisal of human rights without erasing context and while preserving the core principles of universality and single standards. And although HRF officials, participated in NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference, Michael Posner later denounced the racism and antisemitism that marred the Durban meeting.
Double Standards: HRW/Amnesty/Christian Aid Statements on the Conflict between Fatah-al-Islam and the Lebanese Army
(Updated June 13, 2007) NGOs have largely remained silent regarding the intense fighting between the Lebanese Army and the Palestinian terror faction Fatah al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon. This silence stands in sharp contrast to the frequent condemnation of Israeli anti-terror operations, such as in Jenin during the IDF´s Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. This report will examine the responses of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Christian Aid (UK) to the fighting in Northern Lebanon and compare these with statements regarding Israel in the case of Jenin.
"EU-funded NGOs lead anti-Israel events on anniversary of 1967 war"
Many politicized and EU-funded NGOs that contribute to the demonization of Israel are holding activities and publishing reports coinciding with the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 War. These activities portray a one-sided view of events, repeating the Palestinian narrative and providing a distorted history of the war. These events are further exempleries of biased political agendas that are inconsistent with promoting universal human rights, and highlight the danger of government funding for these NGOs.
Amnesty International Report for 2006
Powerful NGOs such as Amnesty International have major political impacts, and often promote narrow agendas that are inconsistent with universal human rights. As part of NGO Monitor´s continuing assessment of this bias, we have systematically analyzed the relative emphasis on Israel in comparison to other countries in the Middle East in 2006. This research clearly demonstrates that in 2006, Amnesty International focused disproportionately on condemnations of Israel and singled out Israel to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights. This evidence of a clear political agenda is consistent with other studies and examples of Amnesty International´s bias and lack of credibility.
World Bank report on Palestinians based on false NGO reports and anti-Israel bias
On May 9, 2007, the World Bank published a report entitled “Movement and Access Restrictions in the West Bank: Uncertainty and Inefficiency in the Palestinian Economy.” As the following analysis demonstrates, the claims made by the so-called "technical team" of the World Bank’s report lack credibility, and are based entirely on the publications of a variety of highly politicized groups and NGOs and UN OCHA. As a result, the allegations and analysis contained in this report cannot reliably be used by policy makers attempting to deal with the challenges posed by the combination of ongoing Palestinian violence and economic crisis. In addition, this report is inconsistent with the World Bank´s apolitical humanitarian mission, and reflects negatively on this institution.
HRW/FIDH/OMCT statement on NGO official linked to PFLP
On May 2 2007, three major NGOs -- Human Rights Watch, FIDHand the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) -- published a joint press release calling on Israel to lift the travel ban placed on Shawan Jabarin, the General Director of Al-Haq. The statement alleges that Jabarin was barred by Israel from attending the annual Congress of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) in Lisbon on April 19, 2007, and that "Israeli authorities have not explained why the restrictions are in place". NGO Monitor´s analysis of this statement shows these NGOs entirely erase Jarabin´s links to the PFLP and the legitimate security concerns. The result is a selective research and ideologically biased analysis, similar to others analyzed in previous NGO Monitor reports.
Claims in B´tselem/Hamoked report lack credibility
B´tselem and HaMoked released a report claiming that the Israel Security Agency continues to torture security detainees in violation of a Court decision. The Israeli Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued a nine page letter detailing the questionable methodology and lack of verifiable sources in the report, and concluding that the report is "fraught with mistakes, groundless claims and inaccuracies." This public rebuttal reflects an important development in Israeli government policy with respect to such politicized NGO reports.
Alternatives (Canada) Update: Government Funding for Radical Politics
With half of its funding from the Canadian government, Montreal-based Alternatives continues support anti-Israel political activity. Through media statements and in cooperation with groups such as the PNGO, Alternative Information Center, Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee (PARC), and Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Alternatives promotes the demonization of Israel, contributes to the conflict, and requires greater scrutiny from the Canadian government.
"Mise à jour d´Alternatives (Canada): Fonds gouvernementaux pour des politiques radicales"
The Role of the UN´s "ReliefWeb" in Promoting Biased NGO Reports
ReliefWeb is a UN-based and funded information service that works closely with NGOs to promote their reports, agendas and campaigns under the guise of humanitarian aid and human rights. While the official UN affiliation provides the image of credibility and objectivity, as the following analysis demonstrates, many of the reports on Arab-Israeli issues posted on the site are copied directly from biased NGOs pursuing an anti-Israel agenda. As a result, ReliefWeb should also be viewed as biased and unreliable.
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 » Last