On March 13, 2019, Amnesty International posted, “Think Twice: Can companies do business with Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories while respecting human rights?” The Amnesty campaign coincides with the anticipated release of the UN Human Rights Council blacklist of “settlement” businesses and is designed to bolster this UN initiative singling out Israel for attack.
Inconvenient Truths for the UN: Analysis of Information Ignored by the 2019 Commission of Inquiry on Gaza
On February 28, 2019, the UN published its Commission of Inquiry (COI) on the riots along the Israel-Gaza border. The COI ignored readily and publicly available information that points to the obvious legality of Israeli actions.
In March 2016, Michael Lynk, an associate professor of law from Canada, began his term as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the “situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.” Based on the criteria to be named a Special Rappoteur and the following evidence, we conclude that Lynk is unqualified to fulfill this mandate for the UN.
- Double Standards
- Manal Tamimi
- Michael Lynk
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
- UN Human Rights Council (HRC)
NGO Monitor submitted the following information to the United Nations Human Rights Council for its Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 protests on the Gaza border.
On May 18, 2018, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held a “special session of the Human Rights Council on the deteriorating human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Many of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that participated in the session condemned Israel for allegedly committing “war crimes” and denied the legitimacy of Israel’s right to self-defense.
EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy: False Claims, Contradictions, and Reliance on Advocacy NGOs
On October 16, 2017, the Council of the European Union adopted the EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2016. The report makes several misleading, inconsistent, and grossly inaccurate claims, as well as disregards a number of EU norms and official stances. The publication fails to provide references or any verifiable sources, violating basic rules of evidence. The degree to which these sections copy from and rely on problematic reports by advocacy NGOs highlights the broader issue of EU outsourcing of responsibility for analysis and policy-making without oversight.