Showing posts with label HRW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HRW. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 03, 2022



Tuesday's primary is over, and in the closely watched Michigan congressional race between two incumbents, moderate Haley Stevens and "progressive" Andy Levin, Stevens trounded Levin by 20 percentage points.

The result is being painted by the far-Left crowd as AIPAC stealing the election by spending millions of dollars through their PAC, UDP, to pay for ads for Stevens. While AIPAC did spend the money, the margin of victory is not because of them - it is because Stevens was heavily backed by moderate Democrats.

One byproduct of the race, though, is that is exposed J-Street's hypocrisy.

J-Street went all out for Levin, no less than AIPAC did for Stevens. They falsely painted Levin as having mainstream positions in the American Jewish community.

The truth is quite the opposite, and it shows J-Street's extremism.

In their message after the race, J-Street wrote:

It is alarming that this race, like many other Democratic primaries this cycle, was heavily impacted by the aggressive outside spending of AIPAC and its SuperPAC, the United Democracy Project. They spent nearly $5 million to target and defeat Levin, far more than was spent by any other group. While Rep. Levin is a proudly pro-Israel Jewish-American, AIPAC smeared him as “anti-Israel,” “fringe” and “hostile.” They targeted him for holding principled, mainstream views about US diplomatic leadership in the Middle East, and for proposing legislation to help uphold Palestinian rights and secure Israel’s future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people.
...

With their overwhelming spending, AIPAC hopes to send an intimidating message to others: Cross our red lines, and you could be next. While political space for open and healthy debate over US foreign policy has opened up considerably in recent years, they appear determined to close it down. Instead of building sustainable bipartisan support for Israel, AIPAC has harmfully turned Israel into one of the sharpest wedge issues in American politics.

To respond to this new challenge, Democratic Party leaders should make absolutely clear just how harmful and unwelcome AIPAC’s interventions in its primary contests are. Candidates in future primaries should disavow and decline the support of AIPAC and its SuperPAC – which have come as a surprise to at least some of them.

J Street remains committed to doing all that we can to represent the views of the majority of Jewish Americans and American voters. We will keep up our work to ensure that our national political and policy debate about foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in honest fact, shared democratic values, and a commitment to lasting peace.
The hypocrisy shown here is off the charts.

Levin's positions are not mainstream in the Jewish community. His centerpiece "Two State Solution Act" has no traction and zero co-sponsors because it is abhorrent to pro-Israel Americans. It makes demands on Israel and none on Palestinians. It defines the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall as "occupied territory." It also defines Gaza as "occupied" even though no Jews have lived there in nearly two decades. 

J-Street's hand wringing over AIPAC's spending is also hypocritical because before AIPAC created their superPAC, the largest Jewish political PAC was JStreetPAC - by far.

But far more telling is what Haley Stevens positions on Israel are that J-Street opposes. From her campaign website section on Israel:

Chief among my priorities are safety and security, both here in the U.S. and abroad, and I believe that our strong and enduring partnership with the State of Israel is a cornerstone of maintaining these goals. The United States and Israel have maintained a steadfast partnership for over seven decades, bound by our shared commitment to common values. The U.S.-Israel partnership is one that must continue to thrive – and importantly, cannot become a partisan issue. I stand firm in my commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance and will continue working in Congress to support policies that strengthen our strategic alliance. 

I had the opportunity to visit Israel for the first time in 2019, where I experienced its deep history, cultures, and natural beauty. I was also able to learn more about the innovative technologies Israel has created that Americans depend upon for agriculture, energy, healthcare, commerce, transportation, and national security, among many others. I look forward to finding new ways to develop strategic plans to build on these technological successes. 

I stand alongside Israel against the BDS movement, which seeks to undermine Israel’s economy and legitimacy. Its main goal is to delegitimize Israel’s existence and inflame tensions in communities and on college campuses, which undermines the prospects for peace. At a time when anti-Israel boycotts are prevalent around the country and globe, and the Anti-Defamation League is reporting a dramatic uptick in anti-Semitic hate crimes, it is now more important than ever to stand beside Israel and oppose state-sponsored BDS. 

I believe in Israel’s fundamental right to self-defense. As the only democracy in the Middle East and our strongest ally in the region, Israel’s safety is paramount to our interests at home and abroad. Congress must continue to unconditionally support critical programs that help Israel upgrade its fleets in air, land, and sea, enhance the mobility of its ground forces, and continue to strengthen its missile defense capabilities. The landmark Memorandum of Understanding reached under the Obama Administration provided Israel with robust funding to accomplish these goals, and I will continue to support funding from this historic agreement, as I have each year. We must prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and further destabilizing the region. Diplomacy must be the first option and is the best solution but all options must remain on the table. 

I believe in the worth and value of every Palestinian and every Israeli and will work to support a negotiated solution resulting in two states—a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state—living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition. This peace process should be settled by the parties directly. 

Our countries share a commitment to justice and equality for all. From standing up for women’s rights to affirming our support for the worldwide LGBT community, our common values are what unite us. That deep sense of justice – born out of a shared commitment to repairing the world – is why we can always count on each other.
This statement says more positive things about Israel than J-Street has during its entire existence. Moreover, it is clearly within the mainstream of the American Jewish community - supporting a two state solution, supporting a strong US-Israel relationship, supporting Israel's right to self-defense, supporting Israel's liberal values, and opposing BDS.

These position are what J-Street opposes. Which makes J-Street an extremist group, not a moderate pro-Israel group.

I am deeply concerned by the persistent and growing effort to demonize Israel, the world's only Jewish state and a close American ally, on the international stage. Whether through the chronic bias displayed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) or accusations put out by groups like Amnesty International, I stand opposed to efforts to unjustifiably brand Israel as an "apartheid state," and I will always work to mitigate the threat of delegitimization against our closest friends in the Middle East. Since its inception in 2006, the UNHRC has created 33 Commissions of Inquiry, out of which nine have dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There have been no UNHRC commissions of inquiry into Iranian or Chinese human rights violations. Israeli Arabs are represented in the Israeli Knesset, Supreme Court, Governing Coalition, and Defense Forces, in short. Instead of holding the world’s only Jewish state to a double standard, we should investigate why its adversaries are so keen on finding new methods to undercut its legitimacy as a vibrant, multi-ethnic democracy. This disastrous characterization of Israel will not serve to end the conflict and suffering in the region but will rather serve to incite violence and hatred toward the world's largest hub of Jewish life amid a time of overwhelming concern for the international Jewish community. I support good faith efforts to address the underlying causes of recurrent tensions and instability in the region in pursuit of peace, but I fervently condemn this campaign to vilify our close American ally with these displays of hateful discrimination.”
This is mainstream American Zionist and Jewish opinion. But I cannot find a single J-Street statement opposing the UN Commission of Inquiry.They issued no condemnation of the antisemitic statements of its member  Miloon Kothari that the "Jewish lobby" controls social media. 

J-Street's opposition to Stevens proves that they are not pro-Israel at all.

Moreover, I cannot find a single statement from Andy Levin decrying those who call Israel an "apartheid state." His silence is tacit support. J-Street says it is against that specific term - but they fully support the anti-Israel reports from HRW and Amnesty that make that accusation. 

There is a further hypocrisy from J-Street in their letter. They pretend to be upset that AIPAC is turning Israel into a wedge issue - yet that is J-Street's entire purpose, to divide the American Jewish community and to promote the ideas and candidates whose opinions are anathema to most American Jews.

And their self-righteous posturing that billionaire money corrupts democracy is even more hypocritical.  J-Street was formed with the early support (within six months of its founding) of billionaire George Soros, a fact that they tried to hide.

All you need to know about J-Street can be seen in this one campaign. And it proves that J-Street holds fringe opinions on Israel that they try to obscure behind their mantras of "pro-Israel, pro-peace, two states."





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, July 24, 2022




Ronen Bergman reports in the New York Times:
 Two terrorist attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires in the 1990s that killed scores of people were carried out by a secret Hezbollah unit whose operatives, contrary to widespread claims, were not abetted knowingly by Argentine citizens or aided by Iran on the ground, according to an investigation by the Mossad, Israel’s secret service.

The internal Mossad study, the written findings of which were shared with The New York Times, provide a detailed account of how the attacks were planned — including how material for the explosives was smuggled into Argentina in shampoo bottles and chocolate boxes.

While Mossad stresses that Israeli intelligence still believes that Iran, a supporter of Hezbollah, approved and funded the attacks and supplied training and equipment, the findings counter longstanding assertions by Israel, Argentina and the United States that Tehran had an operational role on the ground. They also countered suspicions in Argentina that local officials and citizens there had been complicit.

In the first attack, which killed 29 people in 1992, the Israeli Embassy was blown up. The second, in 1994, targeted the headquarters of a Jewish community center, killing 86 people, including the bomber, in one of the deadliest anti-Semitic crimes since World War II.
Now, what should a human rights leader take out of this story, if anything?

Ken Roth, outgoing head of HRW, tweeted this:
Two 1990s attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires that killed scores "were carried out by a secret Hezbollah unit whose operatives, contrary to widespread claims, were not abetted knowingly by Argentine citizens or…Iran on the ground.”
The only part of the article he wants to share with his human rights community is to minimize Iran's culpability for the attack!

Even though everyone knows that Hezbollah does Iran's bidding. Even though Iran funded the bombings and bought the equipment. 

In every other context, HRW (and Amnesty) always wants to maximize culpability for any human rights crime. But when it comes to attacks on Jews, HRW consistently tries to minimize the culpability of the attackers - as Roth claims that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't guilty of using human shields. They bend over backwards to find obtuse reasons to make Israel appear guilty of violating international laws but they act just as energetically to find Israel's enemies innocent, even when they are directly attacking civilians. 

This is a consistent pattern. For these NGOs, human rights are paramount - but Jews are less than human. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, July 17, 2022

  • Sunday, July 17, 2022
  • Elder of Ziyon
  • , ,
The Human Rights Watch 2021 World Report describes the human rights situation, as they see it, in every country.

The number of pages allocated to each country is a rough approximation of which countries HRW considers their top priorities.

And the country with the most pages, by far, is....The United States.

This chart shows a very bizarre idea of where the top human rights problems worldwide are:


Western democracies are rated often worse than states with the most serious human rights issues. 

Here's the entire list so you can see for yourself how twisted HRW's priorities are.

COUNTRIES Pages
United States 18
China 14
Russia 13
Brazil 12
European Union 12
India 12
Colombia  11
Mexico  11
Syria  11
Venezuela  11
Egypt  10
Israel/Palestine  10
Myanmar  10
Afghanistan 9
Argentina 9
Australia  9
Iran 9
Peru  9
Bangladesh 8
Belarus  8
Bolivia  8
Canada  8
Cuba  8
Ecuador 8
El Salvador  8
France  8
Guinea 8
Haiti  8
Honduras  8
Iraq 8
Japan  8
Kyrgyzstan  8
Libya 8
Nigeria 8
Pakistan  8
Thailand 8
Turkey 8
United Kingdom  8
Yemen 8
Armenia  7
Azerbaijan  7
Chile 7
Germany  7
Greece  7
Guatemala  7
Indonesia 7
Kazakhstan  7
Lebanon  7
Maldives  7
Morocco 7
Nepal 7
Nicaragua  7
North Korea 7
Saudi Arabia  7
Somalia  7
South Sudan 7
Spain  7
Sudan 7
Turkmenistan  7
Ukraine 7
Uzbekistan  7
Algeria 6
Bahrain 6
Burkina Faso  6
Burundi  6
Cambodia 6
Cameroon 6
Eritrea  6
Ethiopia  6
Georgia  6
Italy  6
Jordan  6
Kenya  6
Malaysia  6
Mali  6
Papua New Guinea  6
Philippines  6
Poland  6
Qatar 6
Rwanda 6
Tajikistan 6
United Arab Emirates 6
Vietnam 6
Bosnia and Herzegovina  5
Central African Republic 5
Democratic Republic of Congo 5
Hungary  5
Kuwait  5
Mauritania  5
Mozambique  5
Singapore  5
South Africa  5
South Korea 5
Sri Lanka 5
Uganda 5
Zimbabwe  5
Angola  4
Eswatini  4
Kosovo 4
Oman  4
Serbia  4
Tunisia 4







Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, July 12, 2022




This tweet from Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders' foreign policy advisor and president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, is really amusing:

A good question for reporters to be asking this week about the Abraham Accords is why this regional "peace deal" doesn't seem to be supported by actual regional peace and human rights activists.  
The "experts" on the Middle East have been proven to be completely and totally wrong in their analysis, which incidentally has not changed at all since 1995. 

In their universe, Palestinians who are dedicated to destroying Israel should have veto power over anything Israel does with any Arab state.

And for the years of the Obama administration, that is exactly how things were. 

Then, Gulf states realized that their slavish dedication to supporting Palestinians who couldn't even solve their own internal split was counterproductive - and that partnering with Israel would bring great benefits.

So then the largest sea change in the Israeli-Arab conflict since Camp David happened - the Abraham Accords. 

These "experts" were really upset that their formula didn't work, and they keep trying to shoehorn a radically changed Middle East into their old thinking, since they really have no imagination beyond "Israel bad, Palestinians good."

Hilariously, Duss resorts to saying that the "experts" - human rights activists who spend a large percentage of their time demonizing Israel - don't support the Abraham Accords, so therefore they must be meaningless.

Never in their wildest dreams can these blowhards consider that they have been wrong since - well, forever. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, July 08, 2022

A follower of mine from Brazil asked me a question on Twitter:
Good morning, Sr. Elder of Ziyon. I'm from Brazil and could you tell why does Palestine hate Israel? In Brazil, all history teachers love Palestine and hate Israel. Why??  
My brief response, expanded here:

Anti-Zionism is the modern (and socially acceptable) version of antisemitism. My book describes it in great detail. The unhinged loathing you see for Israel and Zionists have few parallels beyond historic hate of Jews. (And Palestinians admit they hate Jews in Arabic.) 
 
Anti-Zionists will claim that they are only supporting human rights, or opposing Israeli policies. But there is an entire NGO industry dedicated to making up or exaggerating Israeli crimes without context and without comparison to others. See my recent post on how Ben and Jerry's ignore human rights abuses in many countries they sell ice cream to. 
 
In order to accuse Israel of "apartheid," for example, Amnesty and HRW had to create an entirely new definition of apartheid that only applies to Israel. Now haters can point to that and claim Israel is worse than anyone - which is objectively absurd. 

The haters also go on to redefine Zionism itself. Zionism is a movement supporting self determination for the Jewish people. Anti-Zionists make up new definitions to justify their hate.

Another way to prove this is that virtually all of these people who pretend to care about Palestinian rights have little to say about discrimination against Palestinians in Arab countries. They are only upset when they can blame...Jews.

By any normal yardstick, Israel cares more about human rights than most countries. It is more progressive. It is far more tolerant of Muslims than much of Europe. It has worked harder than almost every other country to avoid civilian casualties in war

Haters deflect and ignore the facts. The only reason for their obsession is because Israel is a Jewish state. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, July 03, 2022

Remember Marc Garlasco?

Back in 2009, I discovered that Garlasco, a Human Rights Watch researcher who wrote that organization's typically one-sided anti-Israel reports, was an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. 

He was forced to resign after it was discovered that he had written things like "The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!"

Now, NPR is rehabilitating him, interviewing him as an "expert" in a story about how Israel supposedly cannot be trusted to investigate itself in the Shireen Abu Akleh killing:

ESTRIN: Israel is similar to other militaries, which tend to protect their own when they ask troops to risk their lives for their country, says former Pentagon official Marc Garlasco, who has investigated war crimes around the world.

MARC GARLASCO: Militaries in particular have a very poor record of investigating themselves. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Israel or the United States, Myanmar. When organizations investigate themselves, they tend to either exonerate their personnel, or they'll go after the lowest-hanging fruit, and we very rarely see any kind of justice.
If so, why did the IDF immediately identify a possible weapon that could have killed Abu Akleh? Why didn't it do what the Palestinians did and insist that the other side must have killed her? 

The NPR piece is a typical example of choosing the narrative first and then finding an "expert" to support the already chosen outcome. In this case, they chose someone who used to use the nickname "Flak88" after a German anti-tank weapon that also happens to include the "88" dog-whistle that neo-Nazis use as a shorthand for "Heil Hitler" (H being the 8th letter of the alphabet.)

And someone who not only collects Nazi memorabilia, but wears modern sweatshirts celebrating Nazi-era medals.


(h/t Irene)



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, July 01, 2022



Human Rights Watch issued a press release describing how Hamas and the Palestinian Authority engage in torturing prisoners that haven't been charged with any crime.

As of this writing, I cannot find a single Palestinian news site covering this story.

Israeli Arab sites have the story. Pan Arab news sites have it. But Palestinian media - nothing.

Usually, Hamas media would highlight any report against the PA, but since they are named too, they'd rather not create an opening for people to get upset at them. And the same goes for the media linked to the Palestinian Authority. 

This sort of censorship is the every day reality in the Palestinian territories. News that makes leaders look bad is hidden from the news-consuming public. Of course, they can see the story at Al Jazeera - one of the most popular news sources for Palestinians - and then the people grumble on social media about how they have to look elsewhere to read the news. 

HRW also felt obligated to claim that Israel tortures Palestinians, too. Because they literally never can release any report or research about Palestinians without mentioning that Israel is really the biggest problem.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, June 14, 2022



It is the 15th anniversary of the Hamas terror group taking over Gaza from the Palestinian Authority in a bloody mini-war. For 15 years, Gazans have lived under a dictatorial Islamist terror regime, that kills suspected "collaborators," gives perks to Hamas members, and steals international aid meant for the people.

So naturally, Human Rights Watch decided to use the occasion to issue yet another anti-Israel report, calling Gaza an "open-air prison." 
Israel’s closure policy blocks most Gaza residents from going to the West Bank, preventing professionals, artists, athletes, students, and others from pursuing opportunities within Palestine and from traveling abroad via Israel, restricting their rights to work and an education. Restrictive Egyptian policies at its Rafah crossing with Gaza, including unnecessary delays and mistreatment of travelers, have exacerbated the closure’s harm to human rights.  
To HRW, allowing terrorists to enter Israel freely so they can kill Israeli humans is the epitome of "human rights." 

The report adds nothing new to HRW's long list of anti-Israel reports. In fact, it could have been written five years ago with little change. Even though Israel has given thousands of work permits to Gazans to work in Israel in the past year, this little fact is not mentioned in a report that is almost entirely about the restrictions on Gazans' freedom of movement. 

That isn't the only omission. To HRW, Israel has no reason to treat Hamas as anything less thasn law-abiding moral citizens. 

The report does not mention the word "rockets" once.

It also doesn't mention the arson kites, the balloons with incendiary devices meant to start fires in Israel, or the regular arms fire that reaches Israeli communities. It doesn't mention the attacks from Gazans who have entered Israel for medical reasons. 

This is a report about Israeli restrictions on Gaza movement with barely a word as to why Israel might not want to allow Gazans to enter.

This is yet another reason why HRW cannot and should not be taken seriously.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, May 01, 2022




Hamas' Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar delivered an hour-long speech yesterday in which he threatened to attack thousands of synagogues worldwide.

Referring to a large photo of Israeli police responding to riots and attacks in Al Aqsa Mosque staged behind him, Sinwar said, “Whoever makes the decision to allow this photo to be repeated, the violation of Al-Aqsa — he has decided to allow the violation of thousands of synagogues all across the world.” 

He warned that this could happen if Israelis set foot in the Temple Mount on Israel's Independence Day or Jerusalem Day.

This year, Yom Ha'Atzmaut is celebrated this coming Thursday, May 5. Jerusalem Day is May 29.

So far, no human rights group has shown the slightest concern over the threat. Neither have so-called "experts" on antisemitism Linda Sarsour or Rashida Tlaib or Marc Lamont Hill or Peter Beinart, all who have participated in panels on the topic of antisemitism.

Absurdly, Sinwar also claimed that Hamas is not interested in making this into a religious war. That's really amusing from an organization whose founding documents are steeped in calls for jihad, who praise "martyrdom operations" and whose many obituaries are laced with imagery of paradise awaiting their mujahadin ("holy warriors.")

Notably, Hamas seems slightly embarrassed by this blatant Jew-hatred. While that part of the speech was highlighted in the Hamas-oriented Felesteen newspaper and the Al Qassam website, the Hamas.ps website didn't transcribe that part of the speech - and the Hamas English site didn't even mention the speech at all as of this writing. 

But Hezbollah's Al Manar English news site made that part of the speech its headline:


When those who claim to human rights activists and who pretend to be dead-set against antisemitism pointedly ignore a direct threat against Jews worldwide by genocidal jihadists, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that they share the same goal as the jihadists do. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

  • Tuesday, March 22, 2022
  • Elder of Ziyon
  • ,
One year ago, the last handful of Jewish families in Yemen were deported from the country by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, marking the end of the 2,600 year old Jewish community in Yemen.

Here we have not only a human rights violation of forcible deportation but a complete ethnic cleansing of a venerable minority group from a country.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did not say a word about this, though. The eradication of the Jewish community didn't reach the threshold of what is noteworthy to human rights groups. Their Yemen pages don't mention Jews, and neither did their annual reports' Yemen sections. 

Amnesty prides itself on fighting to release political prisoners. Levi Salem Marhabi is a Jew in ill health who remains tortured in a Yemen prison. Even though a Yemen court ruled that he should be released in 2019, and even though his release was supposed to be part of the deal to deport Yemen's Jews, he remains imprisoned today. 

The US State Department has called for his release. The plight of the Jews of Yemen and of Marhabi specifically were mentioned in US government annual reports on human rights. 

Amnesty, and HRW, have been silent about Levi Salem Marhabi.

The last time Amnesty said anything about the Jews in Yemen was in 2008. That was also the last time HRW mentioned them as an aside.

The Houthi flag itself literally says "Curse the Jews." The antisemitism of these Islamists is explicit, and doesn't even pretend to hide behind "anti-Zionism."  But to these "human rights" groups, the remaining Jews in Yemen who were directly threatened by the Houthis every day were not worth a press release. Marhabi is not worth a tweet to these groups.



The antisemitism of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International is not only obvious from their obsessive hate of the Jewish state. It is also clear from what they decide not to report. And they bend over backwards to ignore antisemitism like this. 






Read all about it here!

Wednesday, February 16, 2022


By Daled Amos


With the ongoing talk about apartheid, I was reminded of a report that targeted Israel for war crimes.
Not the B'tselem report.
Not the HRW report.
Not even the Amnesty International report.

Instead, I was reminded of the 2009 Goldstone Report.

Of all the issues and topics that were going back and forth back then, one thing that stood out in my mind was the denial -- the denial from one of the judges on the Goldstone commission.

Desmond Travers, a retired Irish Army colonel, was part of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Whatever else Travers may have contributed to the group, one thing he seemed to make it his job to do was offer implausible deniability.

Yes, implausible deniability

In  an interview at the time with the Middle East Monitor, Desmond Travers came up with the following response to Hanan Chehata:

So far, no substantive critique of the report has been received?

Well, one of the easiest ways to rebut a criticism is to deny that it was ever made (this was back in the day, before it was fashionable to rebut criticism by accusing the other person of being a racist).

Among the papers and articles that came out rebutting the Goldstone Report on issues of law, fact and bias were those from:

o  The Israeli government
o  Alan Dershowitz
o  David Matas (international human rights lawyer)
o  Richard Landes (historian and author)
o  Yaacov Lozowick (historian)
o  CAMERA
o  Intelligence and Terrorism Resource Center 

[As well as EoZ.]

But you would never know it from Travers, who made it his business to assure everyone that there was nothing to see -- no criticism, no errors of fact and no controversy in the definition and application of the law.

Fast forward to 2021.

When the HRW report came out, the group apparently adopted the same strategy of denying that anyone could come up with a credible critique of what they wrote. On July 9, 2021, Omar Shakir, HRW's Israel and Palestine Director, tweeted:


One week later, Shakir repeated his claim in an interview with Al Jazeera:


Strawmen?

Anne Herzberg, a legal advisor for NGO Monitor, notes the irony in Shakir's use of the term:

Moreover, the invocation of “strawmen” is ironic, given that neither Shakir nor Roth provided any identification of who or what those strawmen might be, in order to avoid having to refute the substantive arguments.

More to the point, Shakir claims that he did not receive "almost any" counter-arguments on questions of law or definitions.

He is ignoring Eugene Kontorovich's paper, which oddly enough does address the issues of both law and definitions that Shakir claims are lacking -- as well as addressing errors of fact. Kontorovich has a shorter post as well.

CAMERA is apparently guilty of the kind of ad hominem attacks that Shakir condemns. They note that Joe Stork, HRW's Deputy Director for Middle East and North Africa who joined the group in 1996:

Before being hired by HRW, Stork openly supported Palestinian terror attacks against Jewish civilians, and opposed any and all peace treaties between Israel and Arab states.

But pointing out the anti-Israel bias of Stork is done as the context for the factual errors in the HRW report that follow in CAMERA's analysis.

Joshua Kern, a lawyer in international law who has defended clients at the ICC, also wrote one of those posts criticizing the HRW report that Shakir missed. One of the points he makes is that the report appears to water down the concept of "domination" in the context of apartheid from outright "supremacy" down to an Israeli policy designed “to engineer and maintain a Jewish majority in Israel” and to “maximize Jewish Israeli control over land in Israel and the OPT” (A Threshold Crossed, p. 49). Kern notes

With respect to Israel, a policy intended to safeguard the Jewish character of the State and to protect its citizens’ security scarcely reflects the racism of baasskaap [an Afrikaans term for "supremacy"]. On the contrary, recognition of Israel as a Jewish State has been integral to how the international community has addressed issues arising from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1947 at the latest (when the General Assembly recommended partition between the “Jewish” and “Arab” States). [emphasis ]

Will Human Rights Watch now condemn the UN General Assembly as encouraging apartheid?

So how is it Shakir can claim that he is not aware of challenges to the HRW report?

Herzberg may have the answer.

She notes that in the actual report, Shakir's role in creating the report is mentioned:

Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, was the lead researcher and author of this report. [emphasis added]

Yet in a symposium last year designed to allow for HRW and critics of its report to confront each other -- Shakir was not to be found. Instead, Clive Baldwin and Emilie Max provided HRW's response. 

According to the report, Baldwin is a senior legal advisor at HRW who provided program and legal review, while Max is a consultant who contributed research

So Shakir is the lead person responsible for the report -- yet did not show up to actually answer for it. Lawyers who had a secondary role in creating the report were there instead.

No wonder Shakir has no idea of the challenges to his report.





Sunday, February 13, 2022

  • Sunday, February 13, 2022
  • Elder of Ziyon
  • ,
From the Jerusalem Post:
Lebanon's State Shura Council decided this month to reverse an order issued in December allowing Palestinian refugees to work in trade-union regulated professions, after complaints that the order would encroach on the rights of Lebanese professionals and claims that the order was trying to pave the way for naturalizing Palestinian refugees.

The reversal was made after the council accepted an appeal by the Maronite League, the head of the league, Neamatallah Abi Nasr, announced on Thursday, according to Lebanon's National News Agency (NNA).

In December, amended regulations published by the country's Labor Ministry stated that Palestinians who were born in Lebanon and officially registered in the records of the Lebanese Interior Ministry will be allowed to work in professions that are in general limited to Lebanese citizens only, such as law, engineering and medicine, among others.

The appeal filed by the Maronite League claimed that the labor minister had overstepped his authority when he issued a decision allowing Palestinians to access previously barred professions. The appeal had claimed that the decision violated the country's constitution, adding that the league was blocking attempts to "change the modern and historic face of Lebanon and attempting to impose a new demographic status quo," according to L'Orient Le'Jour.
Palestinians in Lebanon have no path to citizenship, unlike all other Arabs.

Palestinians in Lebanon cannot buy land.

Palestinians in Lebanon cannot expand their residences in overcrowded "refugee" camps.

Babies born in Lebanon to Palestinians cannot become citizens. 

All of this is Lebanese law - laws specifically written to marginalize and oppress Palestinians as a separate group from all other Arabs. 

This is the definition of apartheid. 

Not once has Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch urged Lebanon to allow Palestinians who have lived there for seven decades become citizens. Even though they urge countries with other stateless minorities to give them a path to citizenship, when it comes to Palestinians, they instead agree that they should remain stateless until they can "return" to an Israel they never lived in and were never citizens of.

Amnesty hasn't written a full report on the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon since 2007. In 2006, it admitted that "state policies and practices in Lebanon discriminate, effectively on grounds of racial and national origin, against Palestinian refugees who reside in Lebanon."  Meaning that Lebanon was guilty of apartheid against Palestinians in 2006 by its own definition, but it refused to use that word - and still does.

Which just proves that Amnesty doesn't really care about Palestinian rights unless it can blame Israel.







Wednesday, February 09, 2022

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal


The recent Amnesty International report which accuses Israel of apartheid and crimes against humanity is demonstrably dishonest, tendentious, and so lacking in context to be unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, it has even been called “a paradigmatic example of anti-semitism [sic].” But this will not prevent its use as a weapon in the ongoing diplomatic and legal war being waged against Israel in the UN. As Anne Herzberg of NGO Monitor wrote,

These groups [Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem]—through their personal connections and singular influence at the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the acquiescence of Europe—instead will simply get U.N. Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk and the Navi Pillay-headed Commission of Inquiry [COI] to uncritically adopt their claims and mark them with the U.N. stamp of approval in the next few months. Unsurprisingly and in keeping with his history of anti-Israel activism (as well as in violation of U.N. rules), although he is ostensibly currently conducting an independent and objective investigation of apartheid, Lynk promoted the group’s report on Twitter. There is no doubt that the COI will act in a similar fashion.

Here are a few of Amnesty’s dozens of recommendations (p. 272ff.): Israel must repeal its nation-state law, “relocate” Jewish residents from areas outside 1949 armistice lines, cancel evictions of Arabs (for nonpayment of rent) and change the law so that “Palestinians” are not subject to “forced eviction,” grant recognition to all “unrecognized villages” in the Negev (i.e., legalize squatting on state land), remove all restrictions on freedom of movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza strip, punish officials and military personnel for their “violations of international law” and “crimes against humanity,” and – last but not least:

Recognize the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to homes where they or their families once lived in Israel or the OPT, and to receive restitution and compensation and other effective remedies for the loss of their land and property.

It should be clear from the above that Amnesty’s objective is no less than the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and its replacement by an Arab-majority state. Nevertheless, we can expect in short order UN resolutions calling for sanctions on Israel and attempts to prosecute Israeli officials and IDF officers in accordance with Amnesty’s recommendations.

The accusations contained in the report constitute a große Lüge, a “big lie.” They are “supported,” in a parody of scholarship, by citations from their own previous reports, from anti-Israel UN agencies like the notorious Human Rights Commission, from documents provided by the so-called “State of Palestine,” from interviews with Palestinians, from the work of anti-Israel academics, and of course from numerous NGOs, including those that were recently outlawed in Israel because of their links with the terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Amnesty is the largest player in the world-wide “human rights” industry. The organization operates in numerous countries and has an overall budget of close to $US 300 million. It started out in the 1960s with a pro-Western orientation, perhaps receiving funds secretly from the British government and the CIA. At some point it became more critical of the West; in 2011, it called for George Bush to be prosecuted over the treatment of 9/11 detainees. In recent years, it has focused disproportionately on alleged human rights abuses by Israel, perhaps as a result of hiring a number of anti-Israel activists for key positions. Agnes Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary-general since March 2021, recently had to disavow a tweet she made in 2013, idiotically accusing Israel of poisoning Yasser Arafat.

But Amnesty’s biased researchers had significant help on the ground. The Zionist group Im Tirtzu (disclosure: I’m a member and donor) analyzed the Amnesty report and found that 77% of the citations from various NGOs in the report came from 16 Israeli organizations, which are heavily funded by foreign money, mostly from the EU and its constituent governments. They are the usual suspects; B’Tselem, Adalah, Ir Amim, HaMoked, Peace Now, and others. Over the past 10 years, these groups have raked in more than half a billion shekels ($US 171 million) from the European Union and its constituent governments. B’Tselem alone got more than 62 million shekels ($US 19 million).

This is a huge sum and should be a scandal of major proportions. These organizations, despite having almost no support among Israel’s Jewish population, are able to exert great pressure in the legal and political realms. They have petitioned the Supreme Court to dismantle communities built over the Green Line, to prevent the demolition of the homes of convicted terrorists, to prevent the deportation of illegal residents, and so on. They seem to have good access to the Israeli media, as illustrated by the recent B’Tselem and Peace Now campaign to mainstream the idea that there is an outbreak of “settler violence.” But most importantly, they produce a steady flow of accusations against Israel to the international media and to foreign governments.

Whenever there is a military conflict, they swing into action to provide respectability to the propaganda from Israel’s enemies; and they provide the fodder for international condemnations of Israel, as happened in 2009 with the Goldstone Report. Much of the material they supply is simply a repetition of claims made by the PA and Hamas, which achieve credibility through the “halo effect” created by their passing through a supposedly disinterested NGO.

Why does the EU pay to maintain subversive anti-state organizations in Israel? Some of the officials involved may actually believe that they are advancing the cause of human rights. On a few occasions, when the connection to terrorism has been blatant, the EU or a government has suspended funding for a particular group. But they appear to be fine with the idea of supporting the Palestinian cause, the dissolution of the Jewish state, at least when no guns or bombs are directly and immediately involved. I believe that there is a deep feeling in Europe, possibly going back long before there was a Palestinian cause (or even Palestinians), that the world would be better off without Jews or, even more so, their state. Antisemitism has somehow morphed into humanism.

And why does Israel permit her enemies to support a subversive fifth column inside the state? I don’t know. Big money corrupts. Maybe enough Israeli politicians have personal connections to these NGOs, and they or friends and family benefit from them, and that’s why the laws that have been passed to regulate foreign money are weak and toothless. Maybe now, after the damage has been done, the Knesset will take action.

The Amnesty report is just another libel against the Jewish people, like the medieval blood libels and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There is little that the State of Israel can do to silence its external enemies. But it does not have to allow them to pay her home-grown quislings to do their dirty work.





AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive