Wednesday, December 25, 2019
David Collier has written a walloping
200-page report (available for download as pdf) exposing the anti-Israel bias and obsession
of international human rights group Amnesty
International. In its sheer breadth of coverage, the report is an
astonishing body of work, but then we’ve come to expect nothing less from
Collier. We watched on, not so long ago, as he issued a similar bombshell, his multipart exposé
of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. That report appeared to necessitate
Collier infiltrating a secret Labour Facebook group.
 |
| David Collier |
This is like the kind of spy
stuff you read about in novels. It would take guts to do that and not a little
caution, sustained over a lengthy period of time, in order to avoid detection. But
Collier’s unconventional methods of research have borne fruit, witness the fact
that Boris Johnson is in and Corbyn is most definitely out.
Collier is using new and
different tacks in the fight for Israel and against antisemitism. The way he
uses social media, for instance, is something we haven’t seen before, at least
not with this level of commitment. What has Collier uncovered about Amnesty and
what can we, as regular people, do to emulate his work going forward? I spoke
with Collier to learn more:
Varda Epstein: Tell us about Jewish
Human Rights Watch. How did this body come to commission you to investigate
Amnesty International? Tell us about your background and credentials. What sort
of manpower and hours were devoted to this project?
David Collier: Jewish Human
Rights Watch is a UK-based NGO. They fight anti-Israel bias the clever way,
either by challenging it in the courts or exposing the toxic nature of those
that stand against us. For example, they have been fighting the legality of
local town councils passing BDS motions and this effort and the publicity they
caused, may have played a part in the UK Government’s recent
announcement that it is going to ban councils from pursuing such motions
altogether.
I have done work for them
before, when they commissioned a report
on antisemitism in the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The report
successfully clipped the SPSC’s wings. We both saw bias in Amnesty as a major
issue, so it was natural they would turn to me for this project.
I have been fighting
anti-Israel bias for two decades. My own strategy is different from most. I
don’t push pro-Israeli material so much. Our problem is not whether or not
Israel is perfect – it doesn’t have to be – Israel has every right to be a
state that makes mistakes like all states do. Our issue is that our enemies are
full of toxicity and hate. This is their biggest weakness and we should spend
more time exposing them for what they are. If you engage in a “did/didn’t”
argument with an anti-Israel activist, the bystander becomes confused. Far
better just to show the person you are arguing with is a terrorist-sympathizing
antisemite. Bystanders understand this much more clearly. We will never
convince an anti-Israel activist he is a hatemonger, so don’t both trying, just
expose his hate to others.
The Amnesty research took
months and well over 1000 man hours. There were hundreds of thousands of social
media posts to cover. During the summer of 2019, I didn’t sleep much.
Varda
Epstein: Why do we care about Amnesty International’s bias? What is the impact
of this organization?
David Collier: We cannot
overstate the impact of NGOs like Amnesty. They are the bridge between actions
on the ground and International forums such as the UN, UNHRC and even the ICC. The NGOs are seen as legitimate and
impartial “judges” and their findings carry real weight. None more so than
Amnesty. If Amnesty is simply pushing raw anti-Israel propaganda as evidence
during a UN hearing, they legitimise the UN’s own bias against Israel. In
effect Amnesty acts as the glue which reinforces a global anti-Israel bias – if
they played fair, things would look very different.
 |
| Ashira Prem Rachana is a "human rights researcher" for Amnesty International |
Varda Epstein: Was Amnesty International always so political? Did it ever do good work? Was there a turning
point?
David Collier: Yes, of course.
Amnesty’s sterling reputation was legitimately earned and this is, in part, why
the situation is both tragic and difficult to address. Amnesty relies on the reputation
from the good work it used to do to shield it from criticism today.
Originally, and in the much
simpler days of the Cold War, Amnesty dealt solely with political prisoners. As
the NGO arena became more overcrowded and competitive, Amnesty sought growth –
both in the areas it monitored and in the type of work it undertook. They
became more political. They felt it necessary to let go of crucial rules they
imposed on themselves to stay clear of conflict of interest issues. In truth
there were logical reasons for them to do so – but they put nothing in its
place and were slowly devoured by activists using Amnesty resources for their
own narrow interests. The decline has been gradual and going on for decades.
 |
| Nadine Moawad, MENA communications manager for Amnesty International |
Varda Epstein: Your report states that a consultant for Amnesty, Hind
Khoudary, tweeted support for a terror organization, referring to known Islamic
Jihad terrorists as “heroes.” Tell us about that. Was the tweet issued as a
private citizen? Does it matter?
David Collier: It doesn’t
matter at all. I think one of the things Amnesty will do to deflect the
criticism of the report is to suggest some of these people weren’t associated
with Amnesty when they made the unacceptable comments. This is irrelevant. Imagine
a judge going home and tweeting as a private citizen that terrorists are heroes
– would any sane person consider him fit to be a judge? With Khoudary, there
were numerous tweets. At roughly the same time she called the two terrorists
heroes, she also retweeted advice to people in Gaza not to publicly say
anything that would ‘hurt the resistance’. This person is a hard-core
Palestinian activist and a supporter of terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad. At
no point can she be considered impartial, not before or after the time she made
those tweets. As it happens in this case, I think she was listed as an Amnesty
consultant at the time – but in any event, it is absurd to believe she would
ever tell the truth about what is taking place on the ground.
Varda Epstein: How does it feel when you see that Amnesty staffer Laith
Abu Zeyad regularly retweets WaadGh who tweeted a smiley face in relation to the terrorist murder of
Rina Shnerb? Do you ever need a mental health day in your work?
David Collier: That’s a good
question, my wife certainly thinks so. Sadly, I have been doing this for so
long I am used to it. This is what I do, I swim in the sewers with these
people. I have to get into their heads and understand them. If I was sickened
by what I saw, I would never be able to do the research properly. I am even
forgiving. Had Zeyad only retweeted her once, I’d have written it off. We all
make mistakes. But she was a common source for him, they interacted. He must
know the type of politics she pushes. This is the problem - these people don’t
even have to hide these associations because nobody cares.
Varda Epstein: What did you find to be the most shocking fact to come
out of your investigation?
David Collier: There is the big
picture and the little picture. The most shocking single fact I found was a
person listed as the regional Media Manager for Amnesty writing a Facebook post
in Arabic that instructed terrorist factions not to “claim their martyrs” but
rather to let the West think they were innocent civilians – not terrorists. The
most shocking part of it all, though, is the big picture. We all know Amnesty
is biased, but the report exposes the level of that bias – it shows that
Amnesty operates with a subconscious (I don’t believe it is a conspiracy)
political world vision. One that hates Israel most of all, but is biased
against India, ignores the persecution of Christians and is strategically
anti-West. I call it subconscious because it is merely the sum of the parts.
Most of the parts carry a similar bias and this translates into Amnesty policy.
Amnesty is a danger to any Western nation that allows them to operate freely
and more fool the nation that pays attention to their findings.
Varda Epstein: This website, Elder of Ziyon, plays a role in your
report. Can you describe the context? What is the importance of bloggers and
tips from regular people in your investigative work?
David Collier: Elder of Ziyon
plays a role in all my reports. It is probably one of, if not the best, archive
of relevant information stretching back to the Second Intifada. If you are
writing about almost any issue relevant to the conflict, a search of the Elder
site is always advisable. In this report for example, I wouldn’t have known
that Saleh Hijazi, the Amnesty Deputy Director MENA had used images of
terrorists for his Facebook profile, if not for Elder’s website. It both saves
me time and acts as a great source for additional knowledge.
 |
| Saleh Hijazi, Amnesty International MENA deputy director used this image of PFLP terrorist and airline hijacker Leila Khaled for his profile photo. |
Varda Epstein: What hope do you have that your report will instigate
positive change? Do you think there is hope that Amnesty International can be
reformed? Where might Amnesty International turn its sights instead of Israel,
to make the world a better place?
David Collier: Amnesty won’t
change from within. They can’t, this is what they are now. What needs to happen
is that we need to expose to others the toxicity within. We need to reach its
membership; the political alliances and every forum in which Amnesty has
influence. Show those people the report. Only real external pressure will ever
work and even then, I do not know if it is possible to salvage without a
complete rebuild.
What should they be doing?
Every Human Rights NGO on the planet should currently have one single goal: The
abolition of the UN Human Rights Council and the construction of a new UN human
rights body that has strict, points-based criteria about membership. The UNHRC
should be leading the way on global human rights issues and such a body could
be such a force for good. Instead it is infested with and controlled by
despots. Nothing would improve global human rights more than a properly run
UNHRC, so if you see an NGO currently working with them – rather than calling for
their abolition, you can automatically say that NGO is not a true human rights
NGO.
 |
| Sahar Mandour, Amnesty International researcher, Lebanon |
Varda Epstein: Can you tell us about your roots and also about the
person you are, today? What makes you a fighter, a person dedicated to digging
deeply to fight against antisemitism?
David Collier: I was born in
the UK and lived in Israel for 19 years. I was part of the Oslo generation,
land for peace, two states, and all that. I worked intensively with
Palestinians during the 1990s. I published a monthly newspaper and used the Al
Ayam publishing house in Ramallah. I worked for peace. Then came the second
Intifada. Israel’s problem isn’t so much the Palestinians, as the global
movement that has turned them into a cause. This conflict should have ended in
1949. The reasons it didn’t have nothing to do with Israel, nor – and I can
hear people shout at me – with the Palestinians. They weren’t even a thing in
1949. The war against Israel is an international one. The Palestinian identity
as we know it today was created from the outside. I recognise this and this is
where I fight my battles.
There is no single thing that
led me to be a fighter. I lost close friends, but then so have most Israelis. I
think I fight because I have to. I do not see it as a choice. People often ask “what
would you have done” when referring to the rise of the Nazis, the creation of
Israel, and other important milestones in history. Well, we are at war now - it
is a global battle and the stakes are higher than most people imagine. If you
are not doing anything today, there is your answer.
Varda Epstein: What’s next for David Collier?
David Collier: I was writing a
book in 2015 when Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour Party. The last four
years have been an enormous time consuming and emotional rollercoaster. Corbyn
was merely a symptom of a growing problem and I see him simply as the first
wave. Boris has now been elected and we have 5 years of opportunity to continue
fighting. I am scared people will think the job is done – it would be a huge
mistake to think that. On the immediate horizon I can go back and hopefully
finish the book. It addresses the rise of the Palestinian identity as a weapon
with which to fight against Israel. I am going back to the British archives in
London to help me as much of the evidence is there. So fingers crossed, the
next major thing for me would be to have my book published.
Israel's Jewish Indigenous Land Rights: A Conversation with Nan Greer, Part 2
***
Read more Judean Rose
interviews:
A
Father Speaks Out: The Murder of Malki Roth and the Refusal of Jordan to
Extradite the Beast Ahlam Tamimi (Arnold Roth)
Israel's Jewish Indigenous Land Rights: A Conversation with Nan Greer, Part 2
.jpg)
