July 2009 Digest (Vol. 7, No. 11)
2009-08-13
Oxfam Novib distributes Dutch gov’t funding to HRW, PCHR, and Adalah
Oxfam Novib in the Netherlands receives nearly €130 million annually from the Dutch government – approximately 70% of this NGO’s budget – primarily via co-financing subsidies (2007, 2008). And from here, the funds are distributed to a number of highly politicized NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, Oxfam Novib partnered with the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) on a “lawfare” project (funded by the EU), designed to “[c]ontribute to the abolition of the death penalty...via extrajudicial executions” by the Israeli military. PCHR has led the “prosecution of Israelis suspected of committing war crimes” such as the “universal jurisdiction case in Spain.” Oxfam Novib also lobbied “EU ministers of Foreign Affairs to shelve the plans for intensifying relations between Europe and Israel.”
In 2007-8, Oxfam Novib donated $987,818 to Human Rights Watch (HRW) – which makes the Dutch government one of HRW’s major donors, and is inconsistent with this NGO’s claim that it “accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.” In addition to HRW and PCHR, Oxfam Novib also funds Adalah, an Israeli-Arab NGO that was centrally involved in preparing a pseudo-academic publication entitled “Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel´s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law.”
The discovery of the close links between Oxfam Novib and the Dutch government comes after the exposure of Holland’s funding for the activities of the NGO “Breaking the Silence.” According to Ha’aretz, the embassy in Tel Aviv provided €19,995 for a report based on anonymous claims alleging human rights violations by the Israeli army, without the knowledge of the Dutch Foreign Minister. (The Jerusalem Post reported the amount as €19,999.) If the amount had been €20,000 “it would have required approval from The Hague,” perhaps due an effort to hide this embassy initiative from officials in the Netherlands.
More radical politics from Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I)
On July 11, 2009, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) activists provided first aid training to violent protesters at the security barrier near Bil’in. According to PHR-I member Ron Yaron, the motivation was expressly political: “The aim of the training is first an act of solidarity with the people who fight against the occupation and the building of the wall.” PHR-I was criticized by Dr. Yoram Blachar, president of the World Medical Association, as “a radical political group disguised as a medical organization.”
PHR-I has engaged in many overtly political campaigns, in contrast to universal human rights activities. These campaigns include attacks against Israel’s Law of Return and the publishing of an article equating Israeli “settlers” to “self-exploding terrorists.”
Yaron also spoke at the July 2009 UN conference of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, called “to discuss questions related to Israeli violations of international humanitarian law during the recent hostilities in the Gaza Strip.” He condemned IDF investigations as a “whitewash” and unreliable. Yaron did acknowledge that “Hamas had systematically used medical facilities and ambulances as a cover for its military operations,” but he summarily and without evidence dismissed what he termed the “justif[ications]” of the Israeli army.
NGOs Continue False Representation of 2005 ICJ “Advisory Opinion” on Separation Barrier
July 9, 2009 marked the five-year anniversary of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion against Israel’s Security Barrier – a political process that was largely precipitated and aided by the NGO network. Although the advisory opinion is not legally binding and does not constitute “international law,” NGOs continue to falsely claim that the decision requires Israel to dismantle the barrier, and that “all States are under an obligation not to recognise, aid or assist the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall and its associated regime.” Then, and now, the legitimate Israeli security requirements in response to Palestinian mass terror attacks, is largely ignored in this distorted discussion.
In marking the fifth anniversary of this campaign, Oxfam also ignored the core security issues, instead repeating the unsupported claim that the barrier “de facto contribute[s] to the altering of the demographic composition of the occupied Palestinian Territory and [is] in violation of international humanitarian law,” urging “the international community to pressure Israel toward implementing” the opinion. Palestinian NGO Al Haq, which has used the ICJ opinion as the basis for several lawfare cases, issued a letter calling for the convening of a “Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention” to “ensure compliance by Israel with IHL.” Addameer and the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (PGAAWC) called for boycotts and sanctions against Israel.
The ICJ process was marked by many procedural irregularities. For example, the terms of reference by the UN General Assembly for the opinion pre-determined the court’s decision including referring to the barrier as a "wall" and concluding the barrier was constructed on "occupied Palestinian territory". And in a breach of protocol, “Palestine” was allowed to submit written and oral statements to the court, although it does not have the status of a state within the UN system. For more information on the issue, click here.
Lawfare Update: Al Haq’s Lawfare Attempt Rejected by UK Court
On July 27, 2009, a UK court dismissed Al Haq’s lawfare case (and what appeared to be the first case initiated by the Gaza Legal Aid Fund) against UK Secretaries of State David Milliband, John Hutton, and Peter Mandelson for “failure to fulfill...obligations under international law with respect to Israel’s activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)” including the “denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination, de facto acquisition of territory by force, and breach of ‘intransgressible’ [sic.] principles of international humanitarian law.” The decision marks the latest rejection of NGO attempts to circumvent democratic processes by exploiting courts around the world to impose their political agendas.
Al-Haq, which is among the leaders of the lawfare strategy against Israel, is funded by European governments, including Norway and Sweden, as well as Christian Aid. A similar Al-Haq suit from 2006 to block the issuance of export licenses for the sale of weapons to Israel was also thrown out by the British appellate court in November 2008.
Al-Haq’s General Director, Shawan Jabarin, has been denied travel visas by both Israel and Jordan because of his role, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, as a “senior activist” in the PFLP terrorist organization.
EU Improves Transparency on NGO Grants
In the wake of the controversy over European government funding for political NGOs, the European Commission’s Delegation to Israel has increased the level of transparency on its Partnerships for Peace (PfP) website, adding detailed project summaries and listing partner organizations who also benefit from EU support.
Additionally, a table of grantees from the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) site, which was “removed by mistake on 2 July, 2009,” was reposted following correspondence with NGO Monitor.
While the new information on EU-funded projects is a positive development, many of these grants exacerbate the conflict and promote campaigns against Israel, including ARIJ’s “Monitoring Israeli Colonizing Activities in the Palestinian West Bank & Gaza.” NGO Monitor’s requests for documents that would explain the procedure for NGO grants and evaluations of their impacts continue to be denied.
B’Tselem adopts problematic Red Cross guidelines on illegal combatants
In July 2009, B’Tselem announced that its “classification of fatalities according to whether they took part in the hostilities” during the Gaza conflict (Dec. 2008 - Jan. 2009) “is based on a new approach of the International Committee of the Red Cross.” According to these guidelines, two types of people are considered non-civilian and legitimate targets: “a person who fulfills a ‘continuous combat function’”; and one who “takes a direct [but not continuous] part in hostilities,” but “only at the time they take a direct part in hostilities.”
The ICRC guidelines are merely the organization's own interpretation of international law, and are not legally binding. In fact, their formulation was subject to intense controversy. Some of the legal experts who helped compose the guidelines “withdr[ew] their support” for the document after the ICRC disregarded the majority legal opinion on the definition of the “direct participation in hostilities.” Nevertheless, B’Tselem adopted the ICRC approach despite its rejection by most of the consulting scholars to the Red Cross project.
B’Tselem’s research credibility, which has been subject to intense criticism, was further diminished following revelations that the NGO had misclassified Hamas operatives as “not participating in hostilities.” After five years, the information was corrected, without a public retraction. Similarly, Muhammad al-Dura remains on the “killed by Israeli security forces” list, despite the unverifiable – if not disproven – nature of this claim.
NGO Monitor in the media
Israel targets foreign gov't NGO funds, Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, July 31, 2009
York U and HRW: naming and shaming, Gerald Steinberg, Canadian Jewish News, July 30, 2009
Israel 'defense brief': Gaza offensive was proportionate, Barak Ravid and Cnaan Liphshiz, Haaretz, July 30, 2009
New Israel Fund should not fund groups that oppose Jewish state, Dan Kosky, JTA, July 27, 2009
Israel prepares for Goldstone report, Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, July 27, 2009
NGO funding base exposed, Anshel Pfeffer, The Jewish Chronicle, July 23, 2009
Human Rights Watch and Its Saudi Donors, Marc Perelman, The Forward, July 22, 2009
From Gulag Liberators to Saudi Retainers, Gerald M. Steinberg, National Review Online, July 21, 2009
The legal assault on Israel is gathering speed, Gerald Steinberg, Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2009
Europeans funding 'Breaking the Silence', Yaakov Katz and Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2009
Diplomacy: Israel vs. Human Rights Watch, Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2009
Israel boycott push in U.S. not yet a threat, say monitors, Raphael Ahren, Haaretz, July 17, 2009
Where Is All This Heading?, Melanie Phillips, The Spectator, July 17, 2009
The Group Behind IDF Abuse Charges, Nathan Jeffay, The Forward, July 16, 2009
Empty noises from Breaking the Silence, Dan Kosky, The Guardian, July 15, 2009
Gov't strikes back against 'biased' human rights NGOs, Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, July 15, 2009
Why some Israeli soldiers are disillusioned by Gaza tactics, Josh Mitnick, The Christian Science Monitor, July 15, 2009
Amnesty slams critics of war crimes report, Marcus Dysch, The Jewish Chronicle, July 9, 2009
Comment: Political, legal assault against Israel is just beginning, Gerald M. Steinberg, Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2009
NGO accuses Sweden of funding extreme anti-Israel groups, Etgar Lefkovits, Jerusalem Post, July 2, 2009
´Israel recklessly used arms in Gaza´, Dan Izenberg, Jerusalem Post, July 2, 2009
Amnesty war crime report picks out Israel, The Jewish Chronicle, July 2, 2009
NGO Monitor Blog posts
HRW Personnel Reflect Built-in Bias, July 16th, 2009
Israel - main course for hungry Saudis at HRW dinner in Riyadh, July 16th, 2009
Oxfam complains media focuses too much on Israel–If the shoe fits…, July 5th, 2009
|
