May 2009 Digest (Vol. 7, No. 9)
2009-06-16
Focus: HRW raises funds in Saudi Arabia by demonizing Israel
In May 2009, leaders of Human Rights Watch (HRW) visited Saudi Arabia – one of the major violators of the norms that HRW claims to promote – to raise funds for the organization. Arab news reported that “senior members” of HRW – including Middle East Division director Sarah Leah Whitson, and Hassan Elmasry, a member of the International Board of Directors and the ME Division’s Advisory Committee – attended a “welcoming dinner” and encouraged “prominent members of Saudi society” to finance their work. HRW’s anti-Israel obsession was stated as the major reason for holding this Saudi fundraiser: “The group is facing a shortage of funds because of the global financial crisis and the work on Israel and Gaza, which depleted HRW’s budget for the region.”
Whitson’s appeal for Saudi support and money acknowledged and cited HRW’s anti-Israel focus extensively, claiming that “Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets.” As NGO Monitor’s systematical analysis demonstrated, HRW’s allegations were based on false and unsupported claims. But in pitching HRW to the Saudis, Whitson invoked the canard of “pro-Israel pressure groups,” which, she declared, “strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it.”
Similarly, Whitson told the Saudi leaders about HRW’s role in anti-Israel activities in the US Congress and the United Nations, boasting that this propaganda campaign was instrumental in the UN’s “fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza,” to be headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, who was also a member of HRW’s board at the time. (He resigned after the investigation began; as NGO Monitor noted, his membership on HRW’s board was a conflict of interest.)
Whitson also visited Libya in April, praising the totalitarian regime for its “spirit of reform,” and wrote about this visit in the publication, Foreign Policy.
York University’s academic façade and the NGO connection
York University (Toronto) has scheduled a large conference entitled “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace” (June 22-24, 2009). The conference organizers claim to have developed an academic framework in which speakers will provide a “robust academic critique of the deficiencies, promise, and perils of the range of prospective models of statehood,” including “models based on two states or a single binational state, federal and con-federal approaches, and other models in between and beyond.”
However, the vast majority of the speakers listed on the program are virulent anti-Israel activists, far removed from an academic approach. There is no evidence of the “robust academic critique” claimed by the organizers. As NGO Monitor’s research demonstrates (see below), many speakers are linked to highly politicized NGOs and leaders of the “soft war” which seeks to attack Israel using labels like “apartheid” – reflecting the tendentious and highly politicized agenda. Similarly, their support for a “one state solution” is the equivalent of calling for the elimination of the State of Israel. Such activity exacerbates the conflict and is the antithesis of the academic examination of different perspectives on the “paths to peace,” as claimed in the conference headline. This conference is also another example of the ways in which NGOs officials use these resources to promote radical ideologies in university frameworks.
See NGO Monitor’s speakers’ profiles for more information.
NIF-funded NGOs repeat calls for divestment, violating NIF’s own criteria
On May 14, 2009, Coalition of Women for Peace (funded by NIF and the EU) – which includes Machsom Watch, New Profile, and WILPF – along with Mossawa (also funded by NIF) and ICAHD (funded by the EU until recently), Zochrot and AIC, wrote to the Norwegian Government Pension Fund and called “upon the Norwegian people to join us in our efforts and to stop investing in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.” This divestment letter accused a number of Israeli and international corporations of “provid[ing] specifically designed equipment for the surveillance and repression of Palestinian population through restrictions of movement and collective punishments.”
The call for divestment from Israel violates the New Israel Fund’s own funding criteria. In an August 2006 correspondence, NIF’s Naomi Paiss wrote: “NIF has never funded groups that call for divestment” (emphasis added). Indeed, according to NIF, when a “Law Fellow” made such a call, “NIF immediately disassociated itself from that position, removed [the individual] from the program and revised its selection process for the Law Fellow program.”
The Coalition of Women for Peace is also responsible for the “Who Profits?” divestment website, a project that tracks Israeli and international corporations that allegedly “are directly involved in the occupation,” and which accepts donations via NIF.
Lawfare update: NGOs fail to block Spanish Parliament vote to amend universal jurisdiction law
On May 19, 2009, the Spanish Parliament voted to amend the country’s universal jurisdiction laws that allowed for crude exploitation by NGOs such as the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). Under the current law, NGOs can initiate criminal investigations against foreign governments for alleged human rights abuses regarding events having no connection to Spain and without the knowledge or approval of Spanish officials. The proposed change would require the case to have a link to Spain.
Many NGOs responsible for using this framework to promote “lawfare” campaigns sought to prevent this change. HRW’s Reed Brody, who is very active in the abuse of promoting universal jurisdiction, falsely claimed the proposed law would allow “impunity to regain a foothold”; Brody has previously referred to US policies aimed at limit the exploitation of universal jurisdiction as an “ideological jihad.” Amnesty, whos false claims on Gaza are central the lawfare process, declared that “there will be more impunity.” PCHR, the EU-funded lead Palestinian exploiter of universal jurisdiction laws, issued several press releases, and FIDH (France) and EMHRN issued similar calls. (None of these organizations has pursued a universal jurisdiction case on behalf of victims of Palestinian terror.)
NGOs condemn UNHRC's double standards, ignore their own – Sri Lanka
During fighting between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil forces (LTTE) in the first half of 2009, between 7000 and 20,000 civilians were reportedly killed by both sides. Yet, a May 27, 2009 UN Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution condemned only the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for “using civilians as human shields,” and reaffirmed "the principle of non-interference” in “domestic” matters – thereby absolving the Sri Lankan government of responsibility. In stark contrast, and indicative of the HRC’s double standards, Israel was the only party condemned during the Gaza conflict, while the war crimes of Hamas were ignored.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticized the “deeply flawed resolution” on Sri Lanka, and Amnesty International stated that the resolution “made a mockery of the Council.” However, these statements ignore the significant role played by these and other NGOs in whitewashing the use of human shields by Hamas and Hezbollah. For example, HRW labeled the Tamil Tigers’ tactics as “human shields,” but refused to apply this terminology to identical tactics employed by Hamas. Amnesty has also condemned the LTTE for human shielding, while blaming Israel for “launch[ing] a military offensive on an unprecedented scale …killing many civilians and destroying homes and other civilian property.” On the other hand, in the context of assaults against Israel, the use of human shields is not on the agenda of these NGO superpowers.
War on Want and NGO allies: Demonization at Gaza demonstration in London
EU- and UK-government-funded War on Want – a major charity whose anti-Israel agenda has been the subject of repeated investigations by the UK Charity Commission – publicized a “Remember Gaza” national demonstration in London on May 16, 2009. The demonstration, which allegedly included 5,000 participants, was organized by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, Friends of Sabeel, ICAHD, Amos Trust, Pax Christi and others. Speakers promoted boycotts (“and when you're sipping coca cola, that’s another pistol in the holster of a soul-less soldier”) and demonized Israel (“we’ll never really know how many people are dead…they drop bombs on little girls while they sleep in their beds”). Participants also chanted “Israel is the terror state.”
War on Want’s publicity for the demonstration repeated false claims and distortions, including that Gaza is “surrounded by 40 foot high walls of iron and steel” and the “people of Gaza are being collectively punished and slowly starved to death.”
Gisha’s petition to Israeli High Court rejected
On May 25, 2009, the Israeli High Court of Justice rejected a petition brought by Gisha, attempting to overturn “stringent and discriminatory” restrictions set by the Israeli army on the study of Palestinian graduate students in Israeli universities. The NGO also claimed, inaccurately, that these criteria “violate the rights of Palestinian students to access education.” The army established its criteria as mandated by the court in 2006, following a Gisha campaign against the (then) “sweeping ban against Palestinian students studying at Israeli universities.” Gisha does not campaign on behalf of Israeli students who have been deprived of their rights due to Palestinian rocket and bomb attacks on university and college campuses.
Similar allegations, also distorting international legal terms, were issued by Gisha in May-June 2008 regarding “students” from Gaza in the framework of the US-government’s Fulbright program. Many of these Palestinians were later refused entry to the US on the basis of security related concerns. Gisha has demonstrated that it is a political organization that uses human rights rhetoric to pursue its goals.
NGO Monitor in the media
Taking back the narrative, Gerald M. Steinberg, Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2009
Amnesty blames Israel for collapse of truce with Hamas, Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post, May 28, 2009
Amnesty: Israel repeatedly violated rules of war in Gaza, Yossi Melman, Haaretz, May 28, 2009
Want EU funding? Promote Palestinian positions, Etgar Lefkovits, Jerusalem Post, May 19, 2009
NGO Monitor: EU-funded groups promote Palestinian positions on Jerusalem, Ynetnews.com, May 19, 2009
Where War on Want is itself found wanting, Dan Kosky, Jewish Chronicle, May 14, 2009
Human Right Watch's war on Sri Lanka, Chandrani Gunaratna, ColomboPage, May 11, 2009
The Centrality of NGOs In Promoting Anti-Israel Boycotts And Sanctions, Gerald Steinberg, Jewish Political Studies Review (JCPA), May 10, 2009
Arab peace or Durban war?, Gerald M. Steinberg, Bitterlemons, May 07, 2009
Articles of interest
No, Mr. Halper, whoever incites against Israel does not want peace, Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma´ariv, May 22, 2009
Numbers Game, Simona Weinglass, The New Republic, May 06, 2009
NGO Monitor Blog posts
EU-funded PCHR Aids Arab League in Lawfare Mission/Gives Hamas a Free Pass, May 14th, 2009
NGOs in Glass Houses…, May 7th, 2009
HRW Board Member by Day, Al Haq Founder and PLO Adviser by Night, May 6th, 2009
Ex-Amnesty head writes anti-Israel Gaza report for UN, May 5th, 2009
|
|
