The Nottebohm Smoking Gun: When Both Amnesty and HRW Made the Identical Legal "Error"

My article yesterday about Human Rights Watch's shelved report calling Israel's immigration policy a "crime against humanity" reminded me of the last time HRW and Amnesty International claimed that international law requires Israel to accept millions of Palestinian "refugees" and their descendants.

Back in 2013, I noticed something curious: both organizations pointed to the same International Court of Justice case—Nottebohm (1955)—as proof that Palestinians have a legal "right of return" based on maintaining emotional and familial ties to territory their ancestors left. (Amnesty wrote about it in 2001, HRW in 2002.)

Their logic went like this: The Nottebohm case established that nationality requires a "genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments" between a person and a place. Palestinians who maintain ties to the land—even generations later—therefore have legal rights to return based on this genuine connection. Israel's refusal to honor this violates international law.

There was only one problem: Not only did the Nottebohm case not say what they claimed, it said the opposite.

The Nottebohm case involved a German businessman, Friedrich Nottebohm, who had lived in Guatemala for 34 years. When World War II broke out, he hastily obtained citizenship from Liechtenstein (where he had minimal ties) to avoid being treated as an enemy alien. Guatemala refused to recognize this new citizenship and seized his property. Liechtenstein sued on his behalf, claiming he was now their citizen and deserved diplomatic protection.

The ICJ ruled against Liechtenstein, finding that Nottebohm's "naturalization was not based on any real prior connection with Liechtenstein." The Court stated that nationality should reflect "a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments" between an individual and a STATE—not a territory.

Notice the critical distinction: The case was about which state could claim someone as a national for purposes of diplomatic protection. It was about citizenship and state sovereignty, not about territorial rights.

The key passage states: "nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties."

HRW and Amnesty quoted the "genuine connection" language while systematically replacing "state" with "territory" to twist a ruling about citizenship into one about land rights.

Here's what makes this particularly absurd: Nottebohm himself had genuine ties to Guatemala—34 years of residence, extensive business operations, deep roots in the community. Yet the ICJ ruled that Guatemala had no obligation to grant him citizenship or even recognize his Liechtenstein citizenship.

If anything, Nottebohm affirmed that states have absolute sovereign control over who they grant citizenship to, even when someone has genuine territorial connections. The ruling explicitly states: "it is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."

This is the exact opposite of a "right of return" based on ancestral territorial ties.

When I wrote about this in 2013, I kept second-guessing myself. How could I—a non-lawyer, a blogger—have read the case so differently from two major international human rights organizations with teams of highly credentialed lawyers?

I must be missing something, I thought. Maybe there's some nuance in international law I don't understand. Maybe my layman's reading of the text was naive. These organizations have reputations to uphold. Surely they wouldn't deliberately misrepresent an ICJ decision.

So I published my analysis tentatively, always wondering if I'd gotten something wrong.

After writing about Omar Shakir and HRW's institutional bias yesterday, I decided to revisit Nottebohm with fresh eyes—and with new tools. I asked Claude (an AI system with legal analysis capabilities) to review both my 2013 article and the full text of the Nottebohm decision to identify any errors in my interpretation.

The verdict: I was right. HRW and Amnesty were wrong.

The case is explicitly about the relationship between individuals and states for citizenship purposes. It uses the word "state" throughout, not "territory." It affirms state sovereignty over nationality determinations. It provides zero support for territorial rights based on ancestral connections.

My layman's reading of the plain text was more accurate than the "expert analysis" from two major human rights organizations.

This raises a much more serious question: How could two supposedly independent human rights organizations, both staffed with professional lawyers, both look at the same ICJ case and both arrive at the same incorrect conclusion—while I, as a layman, got it right?

The odds of this being coincidental are essentially zero. When two students turn in identical wrong answers on a test, we know what happened.

This is evidence of either:

• Coordination: They're working from shared advocacy networks or talking points
• Shared ideology: They're part of the same ecosystem where the conclusion (Israel violates international law) is predetermined
• Institutional capture: Both organizations have been captured by an anti-Israel ideology that treats legal research as window dressing for predetermined conclusions

Nottebohm is not an obscure footnote. It's one of the most cited ICJ cases on nationality. The language is clear. The distinction between "state" and "territory" is fundamental to international law.

Their lawyers are not incompetent. They knew they were misrepresenting the case. The alternative—that multiple teams of international lawyers at two different organizations all somehow failed to notice they were confusing states with territories—is simply not credible.

This means both organizations made a deliberate choice to cite a case for the opposite of what it says because it served their advocacy goals.

This isn't an isolated incident. It's the pattern:

• Amnesty invents its own definition of "genocide" to accuse Israel
• HRW claims standard immigration policy is a "crime against humanity"
• Both misrepresent Nottebohm to create a fictional "right of return"
• Both apply novel legal theories only to Israel
• Both start with the conclusion that Israel is guilty and work backwards

What I've learned over two decades of documenting this is that both Amnesty and HRW approach every Israel-related issue from the position that Israel must be violating international law. They will twist evidence, cherry-pick sources, invent new legal standards, and—as Nottebohm proves—cite cases for the opposite of what they say.

Whether this is conscious malice or unconscious bias, I cannot say. But what I can say with certainty is that it's systematic, consistent, and deliberate.

When I wrote about Nottebohm in 2013, I thought maybe I'd misunderstood something. Now I know: They're the ones who chose to lie rather than tell a truth that might support Israel's position.

And that tells you everything you need to know about whether these organizations can be trusted on anything related to Israel.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Amnesty has never condemned "pay for slay." HRW almost did once - 23 years ago.

Human Rights Watch issued a report condemning Palestinian suicide bombings during the height of the second intifada in November 2002.  HRW created a bizarrely high bar for evidence of PA payments to terrorists, essentially discounting anything less than a signed letter from Arafat authorizing such payments directly to someone he provably knew was a murderer. 

Even so, HRW was clear: "Under international law, those who assist, aid, or abet crimes against humanity are individually responsible for the resulting crimes."

But that was the last time the supposed human rights organization addressed the issue. Even after 2004, when the PA officially created the Palestinian Authority Martyrs' Fund, HRW did not say a word.

That's over 23 years since HRW even mentioned it.

But even that is infinitely better than Amnesty International. Amnesty has never written a word about "pay for slay." 

While both groups are keen to condemn any evidence of money that might help Israel fight Hamas, or might help a Jew live in Judea, when it comes to direct financial incentives to murder Jews, these "human rights organizations" are completely silent. 

Palestinian Media Watch has proven just this week that the Palestinian Authority has never stopped pay for slay, even as they have insistred that they no longer do that.

Recipients of Palestinian Authority terror stipends residing in Jordan reported over the last three hours that their monthly payments had been deposited into their bank accounts. According to multiple firsthand accounts, the sums transferred were identical to those received previously, suggesting that the payment scale remains unchanged. Reports further indicate that dozens of transfers were processed through recognized banking institutions.

As bad as these NGOs are in what they say and their obsessive hate for Israel, often the real story is what they choose not to condemn. And the biggest incentive for Palestinians to attack Jewish civilians does not merit a negative word from HRW and Amnesty.

They must not think that Jews should have any human rights. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

HRW "white phosphorus" report again accuses Israel of violating international law that doesn't exist

Human Rights Watch issued another report accusing Israel of violating international law by using white phosphorus in Lebanese towns.

White phosphorus is a chemical substance dispersed in artillery shells, bombs, and rockets that ignites when exposed to oxygen. Its incendiary effects inflict death or cruel injuries that result in lifelong suffering. It can set homes, agricultural areas, and other civilian objects on fire. Under international humanitarian law, the use of airburst white phosphorus is unlawfully indiscriminate in populated areas and otherwise does not meet the legal requirement to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm.

... Lebanon should promptly file a declaration with the International Criminal Court (ICC), enabling the investigation and prosecution of grave international crimes within the court’s jurisdiction on Lebanese territory since October 2023.

The wording is carefully chosen . WP is not an incendiary weapon nor is it a chemical weapon, which have very specific definitions under international law. It is a legal weapon used by major militaries including the US. But HRW makes sure to use the words "incendiary" and "chemical" to give the impression that white phosphorus is an illegal weapon.

HRW counts 17 alleged incidents of Israel using WP in populated areas. Yet, it admits, "Human Rights Watch did not obtain evidence of any burn injuries resulting from the use of white phosphorus munitions but heard accounts indicating possible respiratory damage."

If white phosphorus' main problem is that it can burn people, and not one case of anyone being burned was found, then it appears that Israel is using the weapon responsibly (if indeed this is white phosphorus and not a similar smokescreen.)

Unlike Human Rights Watch, the Lieber Institute at West Point goes into detail on the legality of using white phosphorus, and finds that it is quite legal, as long as it is not used to violate other laws of war like the principle of proportionality.. In fact, its legal use is far more expansive than HRW claims. Israel uses it for smokescreen and marking; but international law allows it to be used to directly attack enemy militants. 

There is no per se prohibition on the use of white phosphorous. For instance, a March 2009 HRW report notes that “[w]hen used properly in open areas, white phosphorous munitions are not illegal.” A 2017 article in the New York Times likewise noted that “it is not illegal under international law for militaries to possess and use white phosphorus.” The military manuals of several States indicate that it may be used lawfully, even as an anti-personnel weapon, in certain circumstances (e.g., United States (§ 6.14.2.1), Canada (para. 521.3.), France (p. 20-21), Germany (paras. 453-458), and Australia (paras. 4.30-31)). The question, then, is whether the use of white phosphorous munitions is restricted by weapons treaty law or the law of armed conflict rules governing the conduct of hostilities.

....[E]ven if white phosphorous munitions did qualify as “incendiary weapons,” Protocol III would not ban their use. Rather, it regulates the use of incendiary weapons by parties to the instrument for the purpose of protecting civilians.

The US Army War Manual says "[W]hite phosphorus may be used as an antipersonnel weapon. However, such use must comply with the general rules for the conduct of hostilities, including the principles of discrimination and proportionality.In addition, feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians must be taken." 

Israel says it only uses shells with WP in urban areas under very specific (undisclosed) circumstances that have been approved by Israel's High Court. While the specific use cases are secret, we could get some clues from the footnotes in the US Army Manual, which says the army used white phosphorus in urban areas in Fallujah directly against terrorists: "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosive]. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”

The Lieber article quotes the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, which says that even as an incendiary weapon, it is permitted "when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

The Lieber article concludes, "The application of the law of armed conflict to the use of white phosphorus munitions must be done on a case-by-case basis. Like the use of any munition in combat, whether the use of white phosphorous munitions is lawful depends on the attendant circumstances." HRW cannot point to any illegal use of WP in Lebanon, and says that it does not know if there were any Hezbollah military targets in the areas where it was used. Even the implication that Israel would use WP without any Hezbollah targets - meaning, aiming it at civilians or using it indiscriminately  - is slanderous and nonsensical, not to mention that it shows that HRW knows nothing about the layers of review the IDF goes through in making decisions on types of weapons used in targeting. 

HRW's report can be summarized as "we cannot find that Israel did anything wrong, but it's Israel, so they must have."

There is a further irony here. The same day that HRW released this report, there are major forest fires in Israel's north sparked by Hezbollah weapons. If Hezbollah deliberately tried to set these fires and used munitions designed for that purpose, they would be violating the same prohibition on incendiary weapons HRW pretends Israel is violating. The same Protocol mentioned earlier says, "It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives."

Palestinians have deliberately set Israeli forests and fields on fire from the 1920s to today.. Some believe the current wildfires were purposefully set. The amount of damage to civilian property in Israel from fires dwarfs that from WP in Lebanon. 

But you can be very sure that Human Rights Watch is not going to write a report accusing Hezbollah of violating the same protocol they accuse Israel of violating. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Egypt denies more Gaza medical permits than Israel ever did. NGOs who issued reports condemning Israel are silent.

The hypocrisy of so-called human rights groups is more apparent every day of this war. 

In 2017, five of those NGOs released yet another statement condemning Israel for denying or delaying medical treatment for many Gazans.

 The record-low rate of permits issued by Israel for Palestinians seeking vital medical treatment outside Gaza underlines the urgent need for Israel to end its decade-long closure of the Gaza Strip, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), and Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) said today in a joint statement. 

Israeli authorities approved permits for medical appointments for only 54 percent of those who applied in 2017, the lowest rate since the World Health Organization (WHO) began collecting figures in 2008. WHO reported that 54 Palestinians, 46 of whom had cancer, died in 2017 following denial or delay of their permits.

Now, when Gaza's health crisis is far more acute, how many medical permits are being approved by Egypt for travel and treatment?

According to the latest Gaza health ministry report, Egypt has a far worse approval rate than Israel ever had. (They don't say "Egypt" - only "abroad.")

They count 8,120 patients applying to be treated abroad (most of them multiple times) but only 3,283 have been approved to travel.

That is a 40% approval rate - far lower than Israel even did in 2017, and half of the 80% Israel was approving every month of 2023 before the October 7 massacre.

The Gaza-based Al Mezan Center for Human Rights issued a report yesterday about how kidney dialysis patients in Gaza are having a difficult time getting treatment. Not one of its recommendations mentioned urging Egypt to allow more dialysis patients to travel there to be treated.  As with the MoH, the word "Egypt" is not even mentioned in their report. But according to the ministry of health, only 20% of the applications for kidney patients have been approved by Egypt for travel and treatment.

The "human rights organizations" refusal to say anything negative about Egypt's denial of Gazans to take refuge even extends to not saying a word when Egypt refuses most Gazans who need lifesaving medical help!

The conclusion is inescapable: all these NGOs that issue report after report on Palestinian suffering lose all interest in the topic if someone besides Israel is to blame. They don't care about Palestinians - they only want to do their part to deny the human rights of Jews. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

HRW worker confirms what we've known all along: the organization is wildly biased against Israel

This is the text of the farewell letter written by Danielle Haas, senior editor at Human Rights Watch, It confirms everything we've been saying for years about its obsessive anti-Israel bias.

Dear Human Rights Watch,

Because we live in dangerous times and this is a human rights organization dedicated to free speech, open dialogue, and rights for all, I’m sending a final email before leaving HRW. I’m hopeful, but wary, that an organization with a mission to “Expose. Investigate. Change” can do just that when it comes to its own practices regarding its Israel work, with authenticity and without retaliation.

When I joined Human Rights Watch over 13 years ago as senior editor, I did so with years of experience in journalism covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and time in academia.

Human Rights Watch seemed to be a good blend of both; a leading human rights organization dedicated to rigorous research, focused on international law and human suffering, with a mandate to bring about change. I believed in, and stayed for, the broader mission.

But as the organization grew and its composition shifted, so too did the focus, tone, and framing of its Israel-Palestine work. Following the Hamas massacres in Israel on October 7, years of institutional creep culminated in organizational responses that shattered professionalism, abandoned principles of accuracy and fairness, and surrendered its duty to stand for the human rights of all.

HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks failed to condemn outright the murder, torture, and kidnapping of Israeli men, women, and children. They included the “context” of “apartheid” and “occupation” before blood was even dry on bedroom walls. These responses were not, as some have since characterized it internally, a messaging misstep in the tumult after the Hamas assault. It was not the failure of a few to follow robust internal mechanisms of editing and quality control, as others have claimed.

It did not happen in a vacuum.

Rather, HRW’s initial response was the fruition of years of politicization of its Israel-Palestine work that has frequently violated basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance, and collegiality when it comes to Israel.

It was the expression of years of select historical and political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence.

And it was the domination of HRW’s Israel-Palestine work by some voices that drown out others to the point where those who feel uncomfortable with HRW’s approach and processes – and they do exist – feel silenced.

To be clear: focus on, and criticism of, Israeli policies and actions is valid for a human rights organization.

But what I know from over 13 years at HRW is:

* Israel has featured in the World Report annual global review of human rights I oversaw for more than a decade almost as extensively as world powers including China, Russia, and the United States, and that the Israel-Palestine chapter has always been longer than those of rights-abusing goliaths such as Iran and North Korea.

* The 2021 “Apartheid” report, hailed internally in its goal to affect “narrative change,” sealed the slide. HRW knew its careful, legal argument would rarely be read in full. And there is little doubt it has not been by those – including Hamas supporters – who now bandy about the term with appalling ease. It’s a one-word gift to those who want to characterize Israel in as few words as possible with as little nuance as possible, a go-to “context” for any fate that befalls Israel and Jewish Israelis; 120 HRW researchers recently signed a petition calling for its inclusion in a press release about Israeli hostages.

* Internal fora nominally dedicated to both Israel and Palestine were, in practice, mostly dedicated to expressions of outrage over Israeli abuses and their consequences, both real and speculated. The focus on Israel dominated those spaces both before and after October 7, including the links shared; the space given to colleagues to articulate their lived realities and trauma; and ultimately advocacy.

* Some types of Israeli-Palestine expertise were valued more than others. There was no value placed on having a Jewish Israeli staff member who spoke Hebrew, had covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for international media, a rich academic background, and 17 years’ immersion in the country. The profile of those entrusted with HRW’s-related work is different. The only contact I had with Israel-Palestine content over the years, despite working on virtually every other area of the world, was as World Report editor. I received thinly veiled insinuations and pushback when I highlighted factual inaccuracies in the Israel-Palestine chapter that were later corrected.

* HRW has so little credibility for most Israelis they do not even trust it with their corpses. Zaka, the emergency responder group that collected body parts after the Hamas massacres, said it did not want to talk to HRW because its members did not have faith the organization would not misuse and distort their eyewitness accounts of the carnage they had seen.

* When I named the constellation of my experiences over years to a senior manager as feeling a lot like antisemitism, he replied: “You are probably right.” He did not ask or do anything further.

Three weeks after the October 7 massacres, Human Rights Watch told staff it was “proud” of its response to the crisis.

The self-affirmation failed to address output that included, but is not limited to:

HRW’s first matter-of-fact announcement following the October 7 massacres that barely addressed what had happened, contrasting starkly with its thousands of statements over the years condemning a range of human rights abuses:

“Palestinian armed groups carried out a deadly assault on October 7, 2023, that killed several hundred Israeli civilians and led to Israeli counterstrikes that killed hundreds of Palestinians,” Human Rights Watch said in releasing a questions and answers document about the international humanitarian law standards governing the current hostilities.”

An early press release that could easily be construed as blaming the victim:

“The unlawful attacks and systematic repression that have mired the region for decades will continue, so long as human rights and accountability are disregarded.”

A piece on Israeli attacks on Gaza being devastating for Palestinians with disabilities that failed to mention the devastating impact of Hamas’ attacks on Israelis with disabilities. They included those murdered on October 7, among them a 17-year-old girl with muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy killed at a music festival; those who are now disabled because of the attacks; and Israeli hostages with pre-existing health conditions ranging from heart problems to diabetes.

Lack of context when using controversial figures that came from a Hamas-run ministry:

“[Washington Post] Reporter Adam Taylor quoted Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch Omar Shakir, who said, “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable. In the times in which we have done our own verification of numbers for particular strikes, I’m not aware of any time which there’s been some major discrepancy.”

It is not logical, not possible, and not the case that everyone at HRW agrees with its pre- and post-October 7 Israel work or feels safe. Instead, it is a deeply worrying indication that staff are self-censoring because they fear isolation if they speak and that nothing will be done even if they do. It is a warning that they are cowed by the way in which critics of Human Rights Watch are talked about internally, and by the tone and content of banter before and during meetings, in listservs, and in message chats.

Maybe they’re also not reassured by responses like the one senior management sent me regarding a recent email I sent them, in which they said they “appreciate” my “feedback” and “learn” from it.

I hope so, but I doubt it.

The serious professional concerns I raised over the years with the Program Office, General Counsel, and MENA managers never went anywhere. They were always received – it appeared – through a filter of me being a Jew and/or Israeli, even though Muslim and Arab staff and those with overt political backgrounds are trusted as advocates and to oversee research.

Also, my comments are not “feedback.”

Rather, they amount to a charge and a challenge to Human Rights Watch: tackle the long-standing issues infecting your Israel work and the hostile internal climate that Hamas’ attacks brought into sharp relief but did not birth. Face down the conscious and unconscious biases that inform them. Address inaccuracies by omission.

Do so not because you are under pressure to be seen to be listening, but because you respect the professionalism and expertise of your many thoughtful, serious colleagues from diverse backgrounds who cannot do their work without fear of stigma and retaliation if they speak.

Do so because you care about the health of the organization, upholding your internal standards, and ensuring human rights advocacy is not a fig leaf for political beliefs, or worse.

Do so because you want not just to claim your mantle of moral authority, but to earn it.

Dani    

Here is a screenshot of Haas' former bio at HRW.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Latest EoZ memes and cartoons

It's been a few weeks since I last posted my latest graphics....

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Terror groups support UN Rapporteur. That's all you need to know.

The Hamas website says:

The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas has hailed the position of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese condemning the flagrant Israeli violations against the Palestinian people, especially the collective punishment policy.

Hamas spokesperson Abdel Latif al-Qanoa called on the international community and UN and human rights organisations to put this condemnation into action and to take practical steps towards holding the Israeli occupation leaders accountable for their crimes and violations against the Palestinian people.

Now, there is a ringing endorsement!

Oh, and Hamas is also a fan of a Belgian minister who accused Israel of "wiping entire Palestinian villages off the map." And in the past it has loved Human Rights Watch and Amnesty reports. 

Terror groups have lots of allies in the West, none of whom ever seem to want to dissociate themselves from them.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Let's see how "human rights" groups discuss this morning's deadly PA raid in Tulkarm - if at all

This morning, the Palestinian Authority clashed with terror groups in Tulkarm, leaving one person dead.

The specifics are disputed depending on whether one is reading  PA-affiliated or terror-affiliated media.

According to the PA:

The Political Commissioner General and the official spokesperson for the security establishment, Major General Talal Dweikat, said today, Wednesday, that the security services removed dangerous materials and barriers from inside the Tulkarem camp.

Dweikat added, in a telephone conversation with WAFA, that the Palestinian security forces had received several complaints from institutions and individuals in Tulkarm governorate, about the presence of dangerous materials and barriers in front of children's schools and on the roads inside the Tulkarm camp. Accordingly, the security services moved and removed them, to prevent any risks that might arise. about its existence.

He pointed out that after the security force finished its mission, some armed youths opened fire in front of the governorate building, which necessitated the intervention of the security forces to take the necessary measures and measures to control the security situation and prevent any manifestations that threaten civil peace in Tulkarm governorate.

"Dangerous materials" appears to be a euphemism for explosives - IEDs that terrorists bury in the road, that are meant to slow down Israeli forces when they conduct arrests and raids. We already know that these IEDs are a danger to children - even the UN reluctantly admits this. (Update: Other media confirm explosives near schools.)

 It appears that the PA, perhaps for the first time and ahead of the beginning of the school year, decided that IEDs and iron barriers in front of schools is already a step too far when it puts children at risk. 

And the terrorists were not happy about their hard work of risking the lives of their neighbors to be able to possibly damage an Israeli vehicle being removed, so they naturally started shooting at the PA forces.

Hamas media says that the PA used bulldozers to remove the barricades. 

One person died - the accounts differ as of this writing but it appears that the gunmen killed an innocent bystander while shooting at the PA forces. Terror media says the PA killed the man. 

.This video shows some of the tear gas, and apparently one older man - a father of a "martyr" so he may have been one of the protesters - was injured.

Will "human rights groups" side with the terrorists in this case? The PA did what Israel does - employed bulldozers and shot tear gas to quell a violent demonstration, and possibly used live fire. NGOs usually adopt the narrative that the PA is almost as bloodthirsty as the IDF.

On the other hand it is hard for them to say that the PA should allow IEDs and barricades to be placed in the middle of public areas and near schools. Amnesty and HRW have never, to my knowledge, berated the local armed groups for putting their own people at risk, and they are loathe to start a new complicating narrative that might indirectly exonerate the IDF for its own similar raids. 

So chances are that they will remain silent, and the dead Palestinian bystander will not be mentioned at all. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Human Rights Watch report on Palestinian "children" killed proves it prioritizes anti-Israel propaganda over real human rights

Human Rights Watch issued a new front-page press release today to attack its favorite target, Israel:

The Israeli military and border police forces are killing Palestinian children with virtually no recourse for accountability.

Last year, 2022, was the deadliest year for Palestinian children in the West Bank in 15 years, and 2023 is on track to meet or exceed 2022 levels. Israeli forces had killed at least 34 Palestinian children in the West Bank as of August 22. Human Rights Watch investigated four fatal shootings of Palestinian children by Israeli forces between November 2022 and March 2023.

We've seen this approach before. HRW describes scores of potential Israeli crimes, but chooses to "investigate" only a small number of them. 

By sheer coincidence, the ones they are "investigating" are the ones that seem the most likely to be innocent victims. 

In other words, HRW knows quite well that the vast majority of "children" killed by Israeli forces are legal combatants - teens who are acting as spotters, or hurling firebombs or IEDs, or even shooting weapons themselves. The majority are child soldiers. They are recruited by terror groups, violating accepted international law.

But HRW doesn't want to say anything bad about Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Their reports are meant to be anti-Israel, so they cherry-pick the specific incidents that seem to imply Israeli malfeasance.

Yet even in this constricted, biased choice of trying to stack the deck against Israel, they rely on lies and don't tell you the whole story.

Their "star" is Mahmoud al-Sadi, 17, who "according to witnesses" was hundreds of meters from any fighting when he was shot and he wasn't holding any weapons. 

To emphasize his alleged innocence, HRW gives a photo montage of al-Sadi being a teenage boy.

They missed this one:

Does it make sense that well-trained soldiers would shoot hundreds of meters away from the fighting for no reason? HRW seems to think so, but Palestinian witnesses are notoriously unreliable (even according to NGOs) and they will say what their leaders want them to say. Very few ever admit that the "innocent child" is not so innocent. 

Other cases that HRW think are a slam dunk are anything but. Even the NGO admits that they were all involved in active fighting.

In the other cases investigated, the security forces killed boys after they had joined other youths confronting Israeli forces with stones, Molotov cocktails, or fireworks. While these projectiles can seriously injure or kill, in these cases, Israeli forces fired repeatedly at chest-level, hitting multiple children, and killed children in situations where they do not appear to have been posing a threat of grievous injury or death, which is the standard for the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers under international norms. That would make these killings unlawful.

HRW admits that the "children" were actively engaged in fighting. 

HRW claims that Israel must adhere to the standards of "law enforcement" in these situations, when the "criminals" are heavily armed fighters whose aim is to destroy Israel. It is true that the line isn't clear between what is legally considered a law enforcement situation and what is governed by the laws of armed conflict (LOAC) but to breezily decide that these situations where armored vehicles and scores of soldiers are needed is "law enforcement" is, at the very least, an oversimplification.

The ICRC says "An armed conflict arises whenever there is fighting between States or protracted armed violence between government authorities and organized armed groups or just between organized armed groups."

Sure sounds more like an armed conflict than a law enforcement operation, especially since Islamic Jihad and Hamas have been bragging that they really control, organize and fund these seemingly local armed groups.

Of course, if the laws of armed conflict apply, then any fighter - no matter what age - is a legitimate target. So HRW doesn't want you to even consider that possibility.

But let's look at the innocent children HRW lists:

Here is video from a proud relative (starting at 0:12) showing Wadia Abu Ramuz shooting fireworks at Israeli troops. 

Mohammed al-Sleem, 17, was a member of the Al Aqsa Brigades and also shot incendiary devices at soldiers. 

We've previously discussed Adam Ayyad, 15. He went into battle intending to die and left a "will" in his pocket saying how happy he was to be about to be martyred.  He was a member of the PFLP and buried wearing a PFLP flag.

These aren't innocent children by any definition. But HRW is trying to hide the truth.

Moreover, the number of children who are admitted members of armed groups prove that there is a real human rights concern here - that of recruiting child soldiers - and HRW has, as far as I can tell, not once said a word against the PFLP, Hamas or Islamic Jihad for that reprehensible practice of using children as bait meant to be killed. 

HRW's dishonesty is clear to all, and they are playing their role to put a respectable face on modern antisemitism to the hilt. and even when they clearly know that dozens of the children killed were members of armed groups, they don't say a word of condemnation.

That's only for Israel. 

(h/t Adin Haykin)

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Nasrallah threatens to kill tens of thousands of Israeli civilians. No one condemns him.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah threatened Israel on Monday evening in an address marking the 17th anniversary of the 2006 Lebanon war.

During the speech, he said that Hezbollah needed "a few precision missiles" to destroy a list of targets in Israel that included civilian airports, electricity generation and distribution stations, water distribution, main communication centers, infrastructure, oil and gasoline refineries, ammonia depots and the Dimona nuclear reactor.

His mention of the ammonia plants echo a 2016 threat he made where he said that a rocket strike on Haifa's ammonia storage tanks would cause tens of thousands of deaths. “This would be exactly as a nuclear bomb, and we can say that Lebanon today has a nuclear bomb, seeing as any rocket that might hit these tanks is capable of creating a nuclear bomb effect,” Nasrallah said then.

Think about this for a moment. A person who has some 150,000 missiles,  including thousands of precision missiles, and who answers to Iran, is directly threatening to attack Israeli civilians and civilian infrastructure and murdering tens of thousands. His threats check all the boxes of what terrorism is. 

Yet (as of  this writing)  there has not been a word of condemnation from human rights groups over a direct, credible threat to millions of Israeli civilians. And when Nasrallah threatened Haifa with tens of thousands of casualties in 2016, neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International even mentioned it in their press releases. 

Their interest in human rights always ends when the humans are Jewish. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Ein al-Hilweh camp: Terrorists still control schools, 200-400 homes destroyed - and human rights groups silent

On Friday, UNRWA issued a situation report on the Lebanese Ein el-Hilweh camp where there had been fierce fighting at the start of the month. 

While the media has largely lost interest as the cease fire took hold, the camp is still largely controlled by terror groups:

 Reports indicate that armed fighters are allegedly still deployed in some areas and continue to be intermittently present in UNRWA schools in the northern schools compound, along with the nearby UNRWA camp services office – a serious violation of the neutrality of UNRWA installations. The reported presence of fighters in areas around the school compound has prevented UNRWA staff from accessing these installations. Reports indicate that the ongoing presence of armed fighters in some areas is also preventing the return of some residents to their homes.  

At a Thursday press conference,  Director of UNRWA affairs in Lebanon Dorothee Klaus added more information, saying that between 200-400 houses were completely destroyed. A UNRWA school complex for over 3,000 children had been “violated"  and other schools and a health center were also damaged.

She noted that “it is s not safe for any UN personnel to access (some) areas currently, we’re also not having clearance from the Lebanese military to go inside those areas on the Lebanese military being in control of access to the Ein El-Hilweh camp.”

Far more houses were destroyed by the fighters in Ein el Hilweh than were destroyed by Israel in Gaza in May - but unlike for Gaza, there are no news articles about these destroyed homes with interviews of distraught homeless Palestinians. 

Amnesty has not issued a single press release about the fighting and damage. Neither has Human Rights Watch. 

If they cared so much about the welfare of Palestinians, then why haven't they condemned the fighting and ongoing militant control of large swaths of the camp?

This is again more proof that human rights is not what drives obsessive NGO and media coverage of Israeli actions, but old fashioned antisemitism.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Since 1948, in any given situation, there seem to always be exactly 420,000 Palestinians

Here's an interesting coincidence.

The UN in 1994:

An estimate made by Abu Lughod indicated that the average number of indigenous Palestinians was about 420,000 in the West Bank and about 80,000 in the Gaza Strip by the end of 1948.   

News wires, March 2004:

Schools and virtually every shop were closed in this city {Gaza City], where 420,000 people live. 

Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2007:

Estimates of IDPs in Israel vary widely. There is no government or United Nations estimate. Sources for estimates are accademics, Palestinian NGOs and Israeli papers. The lowest estimate is 150,000 and the highest is 420,000, which includes the children and grandchildren of Arab villagers displaced in 1948, as well as Bedouin communities displaced later on.    

Human Rights Watch, 2010:

Israel’s differential treatment in law, regulations, and administrative practice directly affect the roughly 490,000 Jewish settlers and 420,000 Palestinians in areas under its exclusive control in the West Bank (including in Area C and East Jerusalem). 

Daily Sabah, 2018:

The 420,000 Palestinians who currently reside in East Jerusalem possess permanent residency ID cards and are treated as foreign immigrants by the Israeli government.     (The article predicted that Israel would take away the residency permits of all those Palestinians, a prediction that, like all of them, never came close to being true.)

Eurasia Review, 2018, headline:

What’s Behind The ‘Disappearance’ Of 420,000 Palestinians In Lebanon? 

WASH Cluster, State of Palestine, 2020:

 WEST BANK: 482,509 of people suffering limited access to water; 420,000 persons consume less than 50 l/c/d.

OpenDemocracy, April 2020:

 Palestinians in East Jerusalem: living under a deadly virus and a violent occupation: "There is inescapable and particular on-going acute anxiety about the future of these 420,000 Palestinians."  

World Food Programme, August 2020:

In support of the MoSD’s response plan, which estimated that 70,000 families (420,000 people) have been affected by the spike in COVID-19 in Gaza...

UNRWA, 2021:

UNRWA is a lifeline to nearly 420,000 of the most vulnerable Palestine refugees in Syria.   

Jeff Halper in Arena, June 2021:

 Of the 150,000 Palestinians who remained in the country, the war displaced 30,000 to 40,000. Not allowed to return to their homes (which were either demolished or turned over to Jewish Israelis) and wanting to remain sumud (steadfast) near their lands, this population of internally displaced Palestinians has today grown to 420,000.   

Middle East Monitor, July 2022:

 The Nakba resulted in 750,000 Palestinians being driven from their homes; the 1967 Naksa saw another 420,000 forced to leave.

Al Jazeera, October 2022:

Since the attack, Israeli forces have imposed a continuing blockade on the area around Nablus, restricting the movement of about 420,000 Palestinians, including patients, elderly people and children, who must wait for hours before being able to cross.  

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, July 2023: (Video, 2:04:33)

“This year, actually over, since the beginning of my mandate [May 1, 2022], I have borne witness to a series of deeply distressing events. 420,000 Palestinians, including 91 children, and 56 Israelis, including five children, have been killed. ”

(She later walked this back, saying the number was 426.)

That's 14 separate times, in different contexts, that "expert" quoted a figure of 420,000 Palestinians. 

I am not saying this is a conspiracy or anything like that. It is just a very strange coincidence for that number to pop up in such disparate ways.

420,000 seems like a more realistic, solid estimate than "400,000" or "450,000." 

(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!

 

Read More

Horrifying: Palestinian terror groups use children to build and plant their explosives

PCHR reported on July 3 that Israeli forces shot Ali Hani Al-Ghoul in the chest, killing him. It admitted that he was a member of an armed group and said he was 20 years old.

Later, the Israel/Palestine Timeline site said that al-Ghoul was shot in the head, and that he was 17 years old.

His mother was interviewed:

His mother brought back some of her memories with her little Ali, which she will never forget; She says, "About two years ago, Ali used to come home at night, with his clothes dusty and his eyes red, and he was suffering from severe pain, which was caused by the explosive materials he was using."

"Ali was one of the resistance fighters who made explosive devices in the Jenin camp from primitive materials, but their impact was great and effective by damaging many Israeli military vehicles," according to his mother, who expressed her pride in what her son did and what his friends say about his actions that are beyond his age.

That means that Ali al-Ghoul had been building bombs since he was 15 years old.

Now, the Jenin Brigades division of Islamic Jihad have issued a video celebrating Al-Ghoul's "martyrdom" - showing him building IEDs together with other children. 

It doesn't show anyone else's faces, but you can see that the hands that are stuffing explosive powder into IEDs are not those of full grown adults. 

Jenin's bomb-makers are children.

Ali's mother continues: “Before Ali left the house, he carried a sack full of explosive devices on his shoulder, and later he planted them in the streets and alleys of Jenin camp with the help of his friends, who confirmed that Ali participated with them in a confrontation with the occupation from zero distance."

Palestinian terror groups recruit children to build bombs.

They encourage kids to turn their homes into bomb depots.

They instruct children to plant these bombs in the roads of Jenin where they can kill not only the children but anyone who happens to come by.

And they freely and proudly admit this.

This is not just child abuse: this is systemic and widespread child abuse that is a source of pride to Palestinians.

Now listen to the silence from UNICEF, the UN Human Rights Council, Defense for Children-International, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.  

---

---

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!

 

Read More