• Al Haq, a Ramallah-based NGO, is a leader in anti-Israel demonization campaigns through lawsuits (“lawfare”) and boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) activities.
  • Identifies legal attacks against Israel, not Palestinian statehood, as the “benefits” of the PA’s “September Initiatives at the United Nations,” including “further possibilities to adjudicate claims of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.”
  • General Director Shawan Jabarin has been denied exit visas by Israel and Jordan on several occasions due to alleged ties to the PFLP terrorist group. A June 2007 decision by the Israeli Supreme Court called Jabarin a “Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,” a human rights campaigner by day and a terrorist by night.
  • Prepares “ready-made case files” to prosecute Israeli officials and has proposed a strategy of “flooding the [Israeli Supreme] Court with petitions in the hope of obstructing its functioning and resources.”
  • Its publication co-authored with the NGO Adalah, entitled “Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?” (2009), refers to Israel as a “colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid,” and calls for an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion declaring Israel to be a “racist, apartheid colonial state.”
  • “Field Reports” and “Affidavits” focus exclusively on Palestinian victims and devote limited space to abuses carried out by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Falsely alleges “willful killing” and other violations by Israeli security forces.
  • Frequently accuses Israel of “war crimes” and claims that “the serious allegations that genocide may have been committed by individual soldiers in the Gaza Strip must also be investigated.”
  • Funded by several EU-member states, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institute, among others.
  • Proclaims that the majority of its work at the UN in 2009 “can be summed up in one word – Goldstone.”


Founded in 1979, Al Haq is a Ramallah-based Palestinian NGO that claims to “see the rule of law and standards of international human rights and humanitarian law implemented and adhered to, so that Palestinians can enjoy equal treatment with respect to their human dignity, free from occupation and with the full realization of their right to self-determination.” In reality, Al Haq is one of the most active NGOs involved in exploiting international law and human rights rhetoric to carry out inflammatory anti-Israel campaigns. These include BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions), “lawfare,” accusations of “apartheid,” and promotion of themes that violate the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights’ definition of antisemitism.1

The organization’s core objectives include:

  • Highlighting “provisions of the ICJ A[dvisory] O[pinion] [2004] regarding the Annexation Wall [that should be] implemented.”
  • Ensuring “perpetrators and accomplices of crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including Gaza and East Jerusalem) are held accountable before any viable judge, including civil courts.”
  • “Participation in… activities regarding BDS” that target Israel among its primary objectives.
  • Creation of “ready-to-be-used case files that meet evidentiary demands of criminal trial, ready to be activated in the courts of a number of third-party states when the opportunity presents itself.”

Al Haq enjoys consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This status empowers Al Haq in UN frameworks, most notably the Human Rights Council and the human rights treaty bodies, enabling the NGO to advance its political agenda by placing items on the provisional agendas, observing official meetings, and submitting written and oral statements. Consultative status also provides Al Haq with substantial publicity at UN expense, and access to UN publications and copy services.

It is a partner to or a member of several international NGO coalitions that are heavily involved in anti-Israel demonization campaigns, including the International Commission of Jurists – Geneva, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Habitat International Coalition (HIC), and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO).

Financial resources

Al Haq’s annual report shows a budget of $1,711,166 in 2009, with the following entities funding Al Haq in 2009:2

  • Ford Foundation ($600,000 in 2009-2010). This grant is designed for development of an institute on international humanitarian law, as well as a symposium and publication accusing Israel of “Occupation, Apartheid, and Colonialism.”3  This program contradicts Ford’s 2004 grant disbursal conditions that organizations agree “not [to] promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.”
  • NGO Development Center ($350,000 – Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany).
  • US-based Open Society Institute ($200,000 – George Soros).
  • Evangelische Entwicklungsdienst e.V. (EED) ($186,193 – Germany).
  • Norway ($156,163).
  • Diakonia ($120,490 – Sweden). Founded in 1966 by five Swedish churches, Diakonia is Sweden’s largest humanitarian NGO. It receives most of its budget from the Swedish government. The 2009 grant funded Al Haq’s International Humanitarian Law project, Education and Monitoring of IHL in the Palestinian Territory (see NGO Monitor’s report, “Diakonia: An Analysis of Activities in the Arab-Israeli Conflict” for more information on this program).
  • ICCO and Kerk in Actie ($119,000 – The Netherlands). This grant is for a program entitled “Accountability” (unclear if grant made jointly; funds originated with Dutch government).
  • Ireland ($88,928).
  • Christian Aid ($61,445 – UK).
  • Rosa Luxemburg Foundation ($14,336 – Israel), for a statistical analysis of the Gaza War.4 This report claimed that only 237 combatants were killed even though the actual number was nearly four times greater, as reported by both the Israeli Defense Forces and Hamas.
  • Arab Human Rights Fund ($10,000).
  • Spain ($8,872).

A 2009 grant from Rights and Democracy (Canada) was cancelled in January 2010 because Al Haq is “one of the most vitriolic anti-Israeli organizations.”5


Al Haq’s structure includes a General Director and staff, a Board of Directors, a General Assembly, and a Steering Committee. Several Al Haq board members promote radical anti-Israel campaigns. Board member Jonathan Kuttab has advocated for a “one-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which seeks to eliminate Jewish self-determination. Lisa Taraki, also on the Board, is a vocal supporter of BDS and a co-founder of PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

Shawan Jabarin

Shawan Jabarin is Al Haq’s General Director.  He has been denied exit visas by both Israel and Jordan for his alleged ties to the PFLP terror organization. On July 7, 2008, the Israeli Supreme Court noted that Jabarin is “among the senior activists of the Popular Front terrorist organization.” A June 2007 decision called Jabarin a “Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,” a human rights campaigner by day and a terrorist by night. In the 1980s, Jabarin was found guilty of arranging PFLP training outside Israel, and was sentenced by Israeli courts to twenty-four months imprisonment, of which he served nine. In 1994, he again was arrested for continued involvement with the PFLP. Jabarin has asserted that, after 9/11, “the United States succeeded in establishing linkages between legitimate resistance against occupation and terrorism.”

Notwithstanding his links to the PFLP, in February 2011, Human Rights Watch (HRW) appointed Jabarin to its Middle East Advisory Board. It is unclear if Al Haq’s many donors have undertaken due diligence to ensure that their substantial funding for the organization is not diverted to PFLP activities, or how this funding is consistent with objectives to support the peace process, non-violence, and Arab-Israeli co-existence.


Al Haq was an active participant in the NGO Forum at the notorious 2001 UN Durban Conference, and is a proponent of the Durban strategy of the international isolation of Israel through labeling Israel an “apartheid” state, and BDS and “lawfare” campaigns. Much of Al Haq’s rhetoric meets the EU’s and US State Department’s definition of antisemitism.6

The following is a summary of major Al Haq activities and programs advancing the Durban strategy:

  • On PA’s “September Initiatives at the United Nations”: In discussing the “legal implications of the September initiatives,” Al Haq identifies two “benefits”: “(1) further possibilities to adjudicate claims of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law; and (2) the possibility to gain further influence over the international community’s willingness to put an end to Israel’s violations.” Similarly, according to Al Haq, “The issue at stake in the context of the ‘September initiatives’ is not statehood as such, but a strategy to strengthen Palestine’s position in the international legal order to be unequivocally recognised rights and obligations under public international law and enhance its ability to exercise such rights by bringing international claims.”
  • Field Reports: Since 2005, Al Haq’s Monitoring and Documentation Department has issued regular reports every three months alleging “human rights abuses” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Allegations include “willful killing of Palestinians by Israeli forces,” “excessive use of force by Israeli occupation authorities,” “arbitrary arrests,” and “mass arrests of Palestinians including children.” Al Haq calls these publications “the foundation of the work conducted by the organization,” yet does not provide information about its methodology nor how to verify the credibility of their reports. Attacks against Israeli civilians are not documented. A field report from April-June 2010 made the false claim that “settlers in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories] also enjoy impunity for their attacks against the Palestinian population as the Israeli occupying forces regularly fail to enforce the law against them.” In 2007, Al Haq stated that “since the outbreak of the second intifada, the Occupying Power has almost completely eliminated the already limited authority of the PNA [Palestinian National Authority] in the OPT.”
  • Affidavits: Al Haq collects affidavits from “eyewitnesses” and “victims” of “human rights violations” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Al Haq maintains that “witness testimony” is collected by “trained fieldworkers” and that “the rule against hearsay is followed, as well as other rules relating to evidence that are observed in judicial inquiries.” However, Al Haq does not provide a methodology in order to assess the credibility of its claims. For instance, Al Haq states that “the field reports do not cover the Gaza Strip, since Al-Haq has no fieldworkers there” (see above). Yet, many affidavits, supposedly gathered by Al Haq fieldworkers, are from individuals in Gaza.
  • Publications: These include distortions of international law and erasure of the context of terrorism: Where Villages Stood: Israel’s Continuing Violations of International Law in Occupied Latroun, 1967-2007; The Perpetration of War Crimes During the Israeli Incursion into Ramallah; The Rights to Education Under Occupation: A Case Study in the Arab Orphan School, East Jerusalem; Al-Nu’man Village: A Case Study of Indirect Forcible Transfer; The Wall in the West Bank; The UN Register of Damage for the Wall. In June 2009, Al Haq published a report entitled The Annexation Wall and its Associated Regime. The report characterizes Israel’s security barrier as an “aggressive Israeli policy aimed at annexing significant portions of Palestinian territory.” The report ignores the context of the dozens of Palestinian suicide bombings and shootings that killed and injured thousands, which necessitated construction of the barrier. Similarly, the publication claims that Israel has “legal obligations” to carry out the 2004 ICJ Advisory opinion on the barrier, even though the decision is non-binding.
  • Symposia and International Conferences: Al Haq often partners with other advocacy NGOs to promote BDS and lawfare. These events are generally funded by European governments and serve as pseudo-academic forums in which to promote policies that contradict European governments’ political positions and security interests.

On December 17, 2009, Al Haq partnered with Swedish NGO Diakonia and Avocats Sans Frontières to hold an EU-sponsored workshop in Brussels, “Making Monitoring Work:  Strategic Action.” Organizers distributed materials prominently displaying the EU logo. The meeting centered on strategies for anti-Israel campaigning, such as “access to legal remedies and strategic advocacy” and “consolidating networks and concrete action plans.” At a March 2009 conference organized by Diakonia entitled “Accountability for IHL Violations,”7 Al Haq representatives highlighted several of its universal jurisdiction cases, as well as the legal tactics used in bringing these suits.

In May 2009, in conjunction with Israeli NGO Adalah, Al Haq published Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel´s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law. The publication and accompanying symposium (held in Ramallah in 2009) were characterized as a response to UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard’s accusation that Israel had “assumed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid.” John Dugard has consistently shown bias in his characterization of the Arab-Israeli conflict.8 He has also stated that Israel has no right to self-defense against Hamas rocket attacks.9

The publication declared Israel guilty of placing Palestinians in “reserves and ghettoes.” Academics and NGO representatives from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and South Africa attended the conference and presented papers that falsely alleged the existence of a separate legal system for Palestinians and referred to Israel as a Bantustan state.  Conference participants said that “an apartheid regime has, indeed, arisen outside of southern Africa, and it is the Palestinians who now face it,” and “the fact that the Palestinian minority within Israel is allowed to vote hardly redresses the injustice in all other matters of basic human rights.”

Al Haq and the Goldstone Report

The 2009 Al Haq narrative report states: “The majority of Al-Haq’s work at the UN level in 2009 can be summed up in one word – Goldstone.” Al Haq has been a leading proponent of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Goldstone Report), and the Commission relied on testimony from representatives of the NGO at public hearings. Al Haq describes their involvement as follows:

“Upon the initiation of the mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone, Al-Haq was called upon numerous time [sic] to make submissions to the mission.  As a testament to the scope of Al-Haq’s work, the mission met with Al-Haq’s fieldworkers in Gaza where affidavits were also submitted. Additionally, one of Al-Haq’s legal researchers attending a session in Amman, Jordan addressing PA violations in the West Bank during the attacks on Gaza. Finally, Al-Haq’s General Director submitted an intervention via video conference to Geneva detailing the issue of movement restrictions in the West Bank via the Israeli occupying forces.”  

Al Haq frequently uses the Goldstone Report to bolster calls for “war crimes” cases against Israel, although the report has been repeatedly discredited by international legal scholars. Since its publication, Al Haq has demanded “accountability, whether it be through the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, referring the situation to the International Criminal Court or that by States fulfilling their obligations to bring perpetrators to account under universal jurisdiction.” In a joint statement with other Palestinian NGOs, Al Haq also called on states to “re-evaluate their relationship with Israel” because “normal relations cannot be conducted” with it.

In November 2009, Al Haq signed open letters to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to the President of the European Union seeking their endorsement of the Goldstone Report.

Additionally, Al Haq, joining with 12 other NGOs, signed an open letter to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay (February 4, 2011) criticizing Israeli investigations and encouraging a referral to the International Criminal Court. While the letter acknowledges the lack of “genuine and credible investigations” conducted by Hamas, they falsely equate a security operation by Israel with the actions of a terrorist group. Moreover, by encouraging a referral to the ICC, Al Haq is denying the efficacy and impartiality of the Israeli judiciary, a theme that will be explored below.

Goldstone retracted the most serious charges of the report that bears his name in an op-ed published on April 1, 2011 in the Washington Post. In response, Al Haq and ten other Palestinian groups published an open letter attacking Goldstone’s article, alleging that the “many civilian casualties and the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure during Operation Cast Lead cannot be attributed to human error alone…. The failure of domestic investigations necessitates recourse to international justice mechanisms, including the referral by the UN security council to the international criminal court [sic].”


Al Haq lists among its primary objectives “participation in…activities regarding boycott, divestment, and sanctions” (BDS) that target Israel. Through its association with the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), Al Haq supports the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

Al Haq has pressed for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and has sought to prevent Israel’s accession to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In October 2010, Al Haq campaigned against the OECD to prevent it from holding its Tourism Committee meeting in Jerusalem because it “constitutes an acceptance that an ‘undivided Jerusalem’ is the capital of Israel.”

In addition, many lawfare cases initiated by Al Haq (discussed below) are intended to bolster its BDS campaign.


Al Haq is a leader in exploiting legal frameworks to delegitimize Israel in legal, media, and political frameworks. As mentioned above, one of the organization’s main goals is “building ready-to-be-used case files that meet evidentiary demands of civil and criminal trials, ready to be activated in the courts of a number of third-party states when the opportunity presents itself to prosecute Israeli war criminals and accomplices in selected countries across the world; and on holding Israel accountable before the UN for its violations and crimes committed in the OPT.”

Al Haq’s lawsuits are accompanied by intense media campaigns to maximize the impact of the allegations. Thus, even though all the cases have ultimately failed, the ensuing media coverage paints a highly damaging picture of Israeli actions, thereby fulfilling a major goal of the litigation.

In 2006, Al Haq filed a case against the British government to end export licenses to Israel; it was dismissed by the UK Court of Appeal in 2008.10 A similar case filed in 2009 was also dismissed in the preliminary stages (see below).

In Canada in 2009, Al Haq filed Bil’in (Village Council) v. Green Park International Ltd. (2009 QCCS 4151), accusing a Canadian company of “aiding, abetting, assisting and conspiring with the State of Israel” to commit “war crimes.” Canadian courts dismissed this case and imposed costs on Al Haq. The court held that the plaintiffs had engaged in “inappropriate forum shopping” and chose a Quebec forum to “avoid the necessity of… proving their case in Israel.”

Also in 2009, Al Haq filed a suit for judicial review UK export licenses to Israel, Al Haq v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The suit was for the UK’s alleged “ongoing failure to meet its obligations under customary international law in respect of Israel’s actions since the launch of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza on 27 December 2008.” The claim included allegations of 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.” Like the abovementioned 2006 case, this lawsuit was designed to circumvent the British legislative process and UK foreign policy in order to secure a judicially imposed embargo of all British “aid or assistance (military or otherwise) to Israel.” The court dismissed the case as a question outside the purview of the judiciary. In addition, the plaintiffs lacked standing; the judge noted that “if the claimant is correct, it would follow that any NGO, anywhere in the world, would have standing to bring a claim for judicial review.”

Al Haq has also sought criminal liability for Israeli officials in foreign courts. It partnered with the NGO Al Mezan to secure an arrest warrant in the UK against Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in September 2009. In addition, it welcomed the issuance of a December 2009 UK arrest warrant by Hamas against Israeli opposition leader and former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, claiming she bore “special responsibility for the war crimes and possible crimes against humanity that characterized Israel’s actions during the assault on Gaza.”

Most recently, Al Haq filed a criminal complaint in March 2010 in the Netherlands against Dutch corporation Riwal for alleged “complicity in war crimes” as a result of the company’s sale of construction equipment in Israel.

Advocacy in International Forums

UN Treaty Bodies
As part of its strategic plan, Al Haq exploits its ECOSOC status at the UN in order to “help ensure that key human rights concerns remain in the UN spotlight at its various forums” and hold Israel accountable before the UN for its “violations and crimes committed in the OPT.” Al Haq’s submissions systematically misapply international legal standards and serve mainly to discredit and delegitimize Israel in international forums.

In January 2011, Al Haq partnered with several political advocacy NGOs, including the Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling, Addameer, Badil, The Centre on Housing Rights and Eviction (COHRE), Defence for Children International – Palestine Section, and Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), to offer a joint submission to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The submission purported to aid the Committee in making recommendations regarding Israel’s compliance with the convention. Yet, the submission blamed violence against women and lack of educational opportunities on settlers, rather than on an oppressive and anti-democratic leadership structure in the West Bank and other intra-Palestinian sociologic concerns. The NGOs also omitted crucial women’s rights abuses, and failed to address domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, or so-called “honor killings” (i.e. murders).

Likewise, Al Haq submissions to UN bodies that monitor the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), among others, often feature the same repetitive anti-Israel rhetoric regardless of the relevance to the treaty up for discussion. For example, the submission analyzing Israel’s compliance with CAT focused on housing demolitions and the Gaza blockade, not allegations of torture.

UN Human Rights Council
Al Haq also uses the discredited UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) as a platform for advocating its position. At the 9th session of the UNHRC, Al Haq joined other politicized NGOs in oral statements in which they accused Israel’s “political and military leaders” of being “criminally responsible for the commission of war crimes” and “crimes against humanity,” and demanded the UN General Assembly impose “collective measures on Israel.” Once again, no mention was made of Hamas’ indiscriminate attacks on Israeli citizens.

International Criminal Court (ICC)
As part of its UN campaigning and legal strategies, Al Haq routinely asserts that the Israeli Supreme Court is unwilling to rule on issues affecting the rights of Palestinians.  This argument served as the basis for their brief in support of the Palestinian Authority’s request to accept ICC jurisdiction, filed with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in 2009.

A November 2010 paper used to bolster its campaigning at the ICC, entitled   “Legitimising the Illegitimate? The Israeli High Court of Justice and the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” maligns the Israeli justice system and makes several inflammatory claims about the highly respected Israeli Supreme Court, including accusing the Court of being “the ultimate rubber stamp for Israeli policies in the OPT, legitimizing Israel’s illegal actions through the veneer of ‘legal’ judgments.” In the document, Al Haq also proposes several strategies to delegitimize the court, including “an advocacy campaign against the Court” and “flooding the Court with petitions in the hope of obstructing its functioning and resources” (emphasis added).

Al Haq and Palestinian violations

Al Haq claims to address Palestinian Authority human rights violations in its strategic plan: “Al-Haq continues to be concerned with PNA violations to which the international community will likely turn a blind eye, including torture and the oppressing of freedom of speech, and anticipates that such violations will increase with pressure from the Israelis, Europe, and particularly the US to disarm resistance fighters.”

Al Haq’s detailed objectives with respect to Palestinian civil society and PA abuses include “that Palestinian policies and legislation are in compliance with international legal standards; Palestinian society upholds respect for the rule of law as well as individual and collective security through the PNA adhering to international human rights standards and the existence of an independent Palestinian judiciary.”

Regardless of Al Haq’s stated intention to address PA violations, their “field reports” demonstrate the disproportionate focus on Israel versus minimal attention to intra-Palestinian violence. The April-June 2010 Field Report devotes approximately two-and-a-half pages to PA and Hamas violations, while the rest of the 18-page document alleges Israeli abuses; the January-March 2010 Field Report dedicates two of twelve pages to Palestinian abuses;  the October-December 2009 Field Report also dedicates two pages to Palestinian abuses. The same format is used for the majority of field reports from 2005-2010: approximately 1-2 pages discuss the PA and Hamas, but the vast majority of each document focuses on Israel. Significantly, the comprehensive table that accompanies each report lists “Killings by the Occupying Power” in Gaza and the West Bank; there is no table outlining Hamas or PA violations.

Al Haq also collects affidavits from victims of or eyewitnesses to human rights violations. Of the affidavits from 2010 listed on its website, approximately 71% document allegations of Israeli violations. Few, if any, documents appear to address Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians.

Offensive Rhetoric

Al Haq often employs bigoted language in its reports and official documents, and some of this rhetoric appears to violate the EU’s and US State Department’s definitions of antisemitism.

Al Haq’s inflammatory racial rhetoric against Jews includes terms such as “Judaization.” It also accuses Israel of committing “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” These charges are based on faulty legal reasoning and used without the proper evidentiary basis.  Similarly, Al Haq has insisted that “the serious allegations that genocide may have been committed by individual soldiers in the Gaza Strip must also be investigated.”

Al Haq also frequently characterizes terrorist activities as legitimate “resistance.” Al-Haq’s former General Director and current Board member Randa Siniora has stated: “Although resistance against occupation and its arbitrary practices is legitimate under international law, and these acts are considered a part of the Palestinian people’s resistance and struggle against occupation in order to achieve their right to liberation and independence, the occupation forces call it ‘terrorism’ or ‘destructive acts.’”

As mentioned above, General Director Shawan Jabarin wrote after 9/11 that “[The US] has imposed its own definition of ‘terrorism’ and considered the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation as a form of terrorism.” He frequently invokes a “right to resistance” when referring to Palestinian terrorist activities.

In a 2004 report on the Israeli High Court, Al Haq wrote, “it is important to note that the Jewish character of Israel has so far been maintained by practicing an undemocratic racial discrimination policy against the Palestinian society in Israel” (emphasis added).

Al Haq expressed disappointment and invoked Jewish conspiracy canards following the failure of NGOs to hijack the 2009 Durban Conference, claiming ”the power of Israeli organizations to completely sabotage an important issue like racism.”


Al Haq claims to “see the rule of law and standards of international human rights and humanitarian law implemented and adhered to,” yet the NGO’s activities include disseminating inflammatory, and, at times, antisemitic accusations against Israel; exploiting legal frameworks to promote its political agenda; and promoting highly distorted or false interpretations of international law. Al Haq and its officials frequently characterize Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians as “resistance” and ignore human rights abuses committed by Palestinian actors. Al Haq’s one-sided approach exposes a political agenda, which is pursued at the expense of purposeful steps toward peace, coexistence, and human rights.