New @Amnesty report makes up yet another fake definition of apartheid - just for Israel

Amnesty International is set to release a report this week that parrots Human Rights Watch's report of last year accusing Israel of apartheid.

As we have seen, HRW had to take bits and pieces of different international conventions to try to pretend that Israel's treatment of non-citizen Palestinians somehow fits under the definition of apartheid. Their main evidence that apartheid applies to groups beyond racial groups came from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which did expand the definition of "racial discrimination" to include discrimination against national groups - but HRW did not quote the next paragraph of the ICERD which explicitly says "This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens."

Clearly, HRW was twisting the definition of apartheid in ways it was never meant to be defined, as the bulk of its arguments are based on how Israel makes distinctions between Israeli citizens and non-citizens, not between Jews and Arabs. 

Every nation on Earth gives fewer rights to non-citizens. 

I have seen a copy of Amnesty's embargoed report, and for the most part its arguments have the exact same flaws as HRW's. But they came up with another definition of apartheid under international law they claim says that discriminating against "national origin" is also apartheid.

And this definition is just as much a lie as  HRW's.

Amnesty's report  says:

The public international law prohibition of apartheid is best found in an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice relating to South Africa’s presence in Namibia (Namibia case), where the violation is defined as “distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and limitations exclusively based on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which constitute a denial of fundamental human rights”.

Wow! The ICJ defined apartheid in 1971? This changes everything!

Except that the phrase quoted by Amnesty says nothing about defining apartheid.

Here is what it says:

130. It is undisputed, and is amply supported by documents annexed to South Africa's written statement in these proceedings, that the official governmental policy pursued by South Africa in Namibia is to achieve a complete physical separation of races and ethnic groups in separate areas within the Territory. ...

131. Under the Charter of the United Nations, the former Mandatory had pledged itself to observe and respect, in a territory having an international status, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race. To establish instead, and to enforce, distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and limitations exclusively based on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which constitute a denial of fundamental human rights is a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter. 

International law did not define the crime of apartheid in 1971. This ruling did not try to define apartheid in any sense.  South Africa freely admitted it had a policy of apartheid. The entire question before the IJC was whether South Africa's policies in Namibia were a violation of the UN Charter. 

Just like HRW, Amnesty realized that the definitions of apartheid under international law do not apply to Israel, so they must grab whatever half-truths they can find and claim that the Frankenstein monster of connecting parts from the Rome Statute, the Apartheid Convention (which only say "racial discrimination" similar to that of South Africa), the ICERD (which excludes non-citizens from its expanded definition of "racial discrimination,") and now the ICJ Namibia Case (which does not define apartheid nor racial discrimination in any sense.)

Amnesty is lying - and they know it.

---

---

Read More

The paragraph of an international convention that proves Human Rights Watch twists international law against Israel

After another tweet by Ken Roth (roughly #130 this year) claiming that Israel practices apartheid, I decided to look further into the actual legal definition of apartheid and see if and how Human Rights Watch twists it.

All the relevant definitions of apartheid use specific language that it is a crime of racial discrimination. The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid says "For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them" and then goes on to give lots of examples always using the term "racial group."

The Rome Statute defines apartheid as "inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

The April HRW report accusing Israel of apartheid says that "racial group" doesn't really mean racial group. They have no proof from the source materials, for which the definition of "racial group" was obvious enough not to be defined. Since the actual conventions didn't define the term, HRW took the definition from a completely different Convention.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which was adopted in 1965 and came into legal force in 1969, defines “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the UN body charged with monitoring the implementation of the ICERD, has consistently found that members of racial and ethnic groups, as well as groups defined based on descent or their national origin, face racial discrimination.[47] Rather than treat race as constituting only genetic traits, Human Rights Watch uses this broader definition. 

On first glance, that sounds like a pretty good argument for an expansive definition of racial discrimination, although perhaps not for a definition of a racial group. (I think an argument can be made that the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute intended the narrower definition, and that the expansive definition is explicitly only meant for ICERD ["In this Convention, the term 'racial discrimination' shall mean..."]. Others have argued that the definition of apartheid is specifically based on race alone. But let's set that aside for now. )

Once HRW is relying on ICERD to define what racial discrimination is, they must then include the very next paragraph in ICERD, which applies directly to Israel - and which they do not quote in their report.

This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.

This one paragraph completely destroys HRW's "apartheid" argument. 

Israeli laws do not distinguish between Israeli Jewish citizens and Israeli Arab citizens. They distinguish between Israeli citizens and non-citizens - which every nation on Earth does.

HRW and others will base their "apartheid" arguments on claims like saying that Jewish "settlers" in the territories have different laws than their Arab neighbors. HRW says that Israeli "policies include limiting the population and political power of Palestinians, granting the right to vote only to Palestinians who live within the borders of Israel as they existed from 1948 to June 1967." But that is  a lie -  there are thousands of Israeli Arab citizens who live across the Green Line in French Hill, Beit Hanina, Beit Safafa and other communities, who can vote in Israeli elections, just like Israeli Jewish "settlers"  can.

And if someone like, say, Peter Beinart decided to move to Ramallah to prove that Palestinians are wonderful people who wouldn't murder him, he would not be allowed to vote in Israeli elections even though he is a Jew - because he is not an Israeli citizen.

Virtually every example of discrimination in the HRW report, as well as in other articles that make the claim of "apartheid," is based not on whether someone is Arab or Jewish, but on whether they are citizens or non-citizens - the exact distinction that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination made clear is not to be considered racial discrimination.

This one paragraph in the ICERD demolishes their entire 213 page report. 

The authors of the Human Rights Watch report definitely knew this when they decided not to quote the other section of the ICERD that they base their entire argument on. 

If this was an issue of conflicting legal arguments, then one could let the lawyers argue it out. But if it was a legal argument, one would assume good will from both sides, pointing out their own interpretations of the law. By quoting only the definitions that agree with HRW's pre-determination of Israeli "apartheid" and pretending that the definitions that disprove the argument don't even exist, HRW shows that its own arguments weren't based on the law to begin with, but on a bastardization of international law meant to attack only one state.

---

---

Read More

04/28 Links Pt2: Human Rights Watch’s long war against Israel; News Fit and Unfit to Print; Jewish Groups Mark Two-Year Anniversary of Deadly Passover Shooting at Poway Chabad

From Ian:

Human Rights Watch’s long war against Israel

HRW also refers to 6.8 million Jewish Israelis and 6.8 million Palestinians living between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River, maliciously blurring the distinctions between Arab-Israeli citizens, and Palestinians living under autonomous self-rule in the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority, and in Gaza, under Hamas’s brutal dictatorship.

HRW further erases the distinct identity of Israel’s Arab citizens by lumping them under the blanket term “Palestinian,” although only 7 percent identify as such, and many belong to minority religious or cultural communities, such as Druze, Bedouin, Christian Aramean and Circassian.

In HRW’s fantasy world, Palestinian terror is practically non-existent. According to HRW, most Israeli security measures “have no legitimate security justifications.” HRW’s dismissal of Israeli security concerns entirely ignores or whitewashes the thousands of Israelis brutally murdered or maimed by ongoing Palestinian terror.

Finally, HRW dishonestly claims that Gaza is under Israeli occupation and blames the humanitarian crisis there solely on Israel, despite Egypt’s blockade of its borders and the fact that Israel withdrew from it completely in 2005. The Hamas terror organization has exclusively ruled Gaza since 2007, and is solely responsible for its failed rule and resulting humanitarian catastrophe.

It is worth recalling that this compulsive singling out of Israel for unjustified opprobrium led HRW’s own founder, Bob Bernstein, to write in 2009 that the organization had “lost critical perspective” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, warning that if it failed to rectify this, it risked seriously undermining its credibility. Twelve years later, one must ask, does HRW have any real credibility on this topic?

HRW’s report is another shot fired in the war to disenfranchise the Jewish people and criminalize the Jewish state.

Jews are no strangers to hysterical blood libels, hurled throughout history. Our response must be the same as that of Ambassador Chaim Herzog to the infamous 1975 U.N. “Zionism is Racism” resolution, of which this report is a natural continuation: “For us, the Jewish people, this resolution, based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value.”

Seth Frantzman: Human Rights Watch really wants to push Israel and PA into one state

AT THE end of the day, the Palestinian leadership doesn’t want to surrender its autonomy and become part of Israel, and neither does Hamas in Gaza. The illusion that these areas are all seeking to be part of one state is used to present the area as a single entity.

There is no way, presented within these new human rights reports, for Israel to ever not control the “single entity.” Despite the fact that various accords and UN plans and resolutions have indicated that these are not the same entity – but, rather, are defined as two states, an autonomous region, or “occupied” territory – the new reports seek a one-state analysis.

This definition may be designed to delegitimize Israel – because forcing the Jewish state to retake all these areas, and thus arguing it must grant citizenship to millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, inevitably creates a road to a so-called “binational” state which would no longer have an Israeli majority.

Pro-binational arguments have been advanced for years without any evidence that the vast majority of people want this future. It would make more sense if half the people in the “single” area wanted a binational, one-state end result. That they do not and that they have lived apart for decades, and that Israel has improved its human rights record across the “single” area, indicates that advocating for this analysis has an agenda.

It remains to be seen if this new push will catch on among Western countries, which are the natural targets of this talking point. The fact that large parts of the world have less interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and many states already recognize a Palestinian state, as opposed to recognizing the Palestinian state as part of Israel, would appear to negate the “river to the sea” analysis.

The reports may have been designed to preempt the fact that Palestinians and Israelis are growing apart and to prevent a Palestinian state from becoming more autonomous. While it not clear whether the Palestinians are on board with this idea, Israel is clearly not.

This is a great resource from @The_ILF, that contains:

✅ Original @hrw report
✅ Public statements from Israeli Government officials
✅ In-depth reports responding to #HRWLies
✅ Visuals & graphics
✅ Articles, opinion pieces and statements from NGOs https://t.co/PSOyQbhdZa

— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) April 27, 2021

Watchdog slams human rights group for branding Israel an apartheid state

In its report, HRW is calling on the international community to support the BDS campaign, calling for an embargo, banning entry of Israeli citizens, freezing assets, and banning business deals with Israelis. It also called on the Palestinians to end the security coordination with Israel, a move contrary to all values of human rights and non-violence.

"The distorted reality presented by Human Rights Watch is part of its ongoing political and obsessive campaign against Israel in recent years," Strategic Affairs Minister Michael Biton said.

The Israel legal system is one of the most respected ones in the democratic world. It works tirelessly to protect civil and human rights. The HRW report has nothing to do with human rights. It only aims to discredit Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, Biton said.

Arsen Ostrovsky, CEO of the International Legal Forum, an Israel-based global network of lawyers dedicated to fighting antisemitism, terrorism, and the delegitimization of Israel in the international legal arena, issued a statement denouncing HRW.

The group's report accusing Israel of apartheid "is just the latest attack in HRW's longstanding and relentless obsession and lawfare campaign against the State of Israel.

"Written under the guise of 'international law and human rights,' this report is replete with malicious lies and gross distortions of truth and law while peddling in unhinged hate, incitement, and racist stereotypes.

"In short, this report is tantamount to an antisemitic 'blood libel' against the Jewish state," he said.

Read More

New @HRW report plays fast and loose with the definition of "apartheid" (part 2)

On Sunday we began our look at Human Rights Watch's latest anti-Israel screed.

The 223 page Human Rights Watch report that is being published Tuesday completely hinges on defining Israel as being guilty of apartheid. In order to do that, it has to become very creative in its definitions.

It says, accurately:

The Apartheid Convention defines the crime against humanity of apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The Rome Statute of the ICC adopts a similar definition: “inhumane acts…committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

But HRW has a problem. Both definitions are very specific that the crime of apartheid depends on one racial group oppressing another, which means that the liberals of HRW are saying that Jews are a different racial group from other humans. That is a little problematic for those who know a little history of what happens when Jews are considered a distinct race.

HRW therefore tries to fudge things:

Both the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute use the term “racial group,” but neither defines it.  The development of the Apartheid Convention against the backdrop of events in southern Africa in the 1970s, as referenced in the text of the Convention, as well as the non-inclusion of other categories beyond race, and the rejection of proposals by some states to expand the treaty’s scope, could lead to a narrower interpretation focused on divisions based on skin color.  While discussion of the meaning of “racial group” during the drafting of the Rome Statute appears to have been minimal,  its inclusion in the definition of apartheid, after the end of apartheid in South Africa and when international human rights law had clearly defined racial discrimination to include differences of ethnicity, descent, and national origin, indicates that “racial group” within the Rome Statute reflects, and would likely be interpreted by courts to reflect, a broader conception of race.

HRW makes an assumption that the definition of apartheid not only includes racial groups but also groups that share descent, national or ethnic origin. It's entire argument rests on the idea that Israel discriminates against Palestinian Arabs based on their national origin, which is interesting for a people who have literally no national origin. 

For HRW to make its argument, it further has to prove that Israel systematically oppresses Palestinian Arabs.

Now, let's look back at the definitions of apartheid, and do a test based on HRW's assumptions. 

• Is Lebanon guilty of apartheid based on its laws that limit where Palestinians can live and what jobs they can have? Sure it is. 
• Is Jordan guilty of apartheid based on how it treats Palestinians who never lived in the West Bank, denying citizenship and its benefits? Sure it is.
• Is the PLO guilty of apartheid based on its laws that anyone who sells land to a Jew is liable to the death penalty? Sure it is.
• How about Kuwait, which expelled over 400,000 Palestinians because they were Palestinian? Or Libya, 
• Is Hamas guilty of apartheid for shooting rockets (inhumane acts) with the purpose of destroying Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state (committed with the intention of maintaining that regime)? Sure it is.
• What about the US, with its spate of police killing people of color? HRW's American friends would be the first to say that this is systematic oppression and domination meant to maintain the US racist regime.

So not only is everyone racist, but everyone is guilty of apartheid! 

Yet only Israel is given that description by Human Rights Watch.

HRW needs to go through additional rhetorical hoops  in its zeal to pretend that Israel is guilty of apartheid. It needs to prove that Israel is discriminating against Palestinians who live under the government of the Palestinian Authority, which is recognized as the "State of Palestine" by 138 members of the UN. Since it is obvious that people who live under a completely different national government are not victims of apartheid by a different government, HRW needs to airbrush the Palestinian Authority out of the story.

Indeed, it does - the PA is not mentioned once in terms of Palestinians living under that authority.

Then HRW has to pretend that Arabs who live in Israel are discriminated against because they are Arabs. As we showed yesterday, like many nations, Israel gives preference to its own people for citizenship, but HRW twists that into discrimination against Palestinians - and implies that any state that does that is racist. (Sorry, Italy!)

The rhetorical knots the report is forced to tie itself in gets almost humorous:

Israeli policies have also denied residency rights to thousands of Palestinians in East Jerusalem and left many without nationality. Since its annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, it has applied its 1952 Law of Entry to Palestinians from there and designated them as “permanent residents,” the same status afforded to a foreigner who wants to live in Israel. Permanent residents may live, work, and receive benefits, but that status derives from their presence, can be revoked at the Interior Ministry’s discretion, and does not

automatically pass to one’s children or non-resident spouse even if they have lived in Jerusalem for years. A path to citizenship exists for Palestinian Jerusalemite permanent residents, but the vast majority have chosen not to pursue it, as it involves recognizing Israel, the occupying power, as the legitimate sovereign.

So first HRW says it is terrible that they are not citizens, then says they can become citizens if they want to, but most don't want to, and who can blame them for not wanting to?  

It goes on:

The vast majority of those who applied did not receive citizenship. Authorities rejected many applicants for failing to demonstrate that Israel, and not the West Bank, was their “center of life,” or for their having a criminal record, insufficient knowledge of Hebrew, or “lack of loyalty [to Israel].”

Does any other country allow people to become citizens without a vow of loyalty to the state? Only for Israel does the ordinary become criminal.

Of course, HRW doesn't address the fact that if Israel allows thousands of Arabs to become full citizens even today (and it doesn't mention the many Arabs in the Golan Heights that are now seeking citizenship,)  then Israel clearly does not discriminate against Palestinians as a national group! 

Its historic review likewise does not mention that Israel gave citizenship in the early 1950s to tens of thousands of Palestinians who managed to get back to their previous homes and offered citizenship to 100,000 more, and some 20,000 more in the 1990s and 2000s under "family reunification." This again is inconsistent with "systemic oppression and domination."

This report characterizes itself as a "detailed legal analysis" on the question. However, any real legal analysis looks at both sides of an issue. This report most emphatically does not do that - on the contrary, it tries mightily to lead the reader away from any other arguments, let alone debunkings.

In summary, Human Rights Watch will grab onto the most tenuous threads to pretend that Israel is guilty of apartheid, and it will go to great lengths to avoid any proof that shows it isn't. 

Which makes this book-length report nothing but propaganda.

---

---

Read More

I demolished James Zogby's "Israel is Apartheid" arguments on Twitter so thoroughly, he blocked me

James Zogby is the founder and president of the Arab American Institute, Managing Director of Zogby Research Service which provides polling services, a visiting professor at New York University Abu Dhabi, and a former member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee. He is a leading anti-Israel voice in the media and social media.

On Saturday, he tweeted a link to Daniel Levy warning about Israel's reputation, saying, "It may be uncomfortable to some to hear the inescapable truth that Israel is an Apartheid State. The truth is often uncomfortable. And btw, it’s not antiSemitic to call Israel Apartheid - the problem is w/ Israeli behavior."

I responded with a thread:

I've looked at the actual legal definition of apartheid. Those accusing Israel of apartheid are knowingly lying. And I've shown this. No one has found any holes in my arguments.

Falsely accusing Israel of apartheid using made up definitions is indeed antisemitism.

And if you look at the history of the apartheid libel, it is blindingly obvious that the accusation came first, and the fake legal arguments were created after the fact to justify the lie.

B'Tselem's definition was absurd - it could prove that JEWS were victims of apartheid.

So HRW tried, very hard, to combine definitions from the Rome Statute with the ICERD to make it look like Israel was guilty of apartheid. But they ignored the part of ICERD that exonerates Israel. It was a conscious lie, and every legal scholar knows it. 

 

Amnesty copied HRW's argument but tried to strengthen it by adding a 1971 case that they pretended is about apartheid - but it isn't. 

It is clear: they all know they are wrong but they want to accuse Israel so much they MADE UP INTERNATIONAL LAW. 

But even worse, in these NGOs' Jew-hating zeal, they want to make Israel look uniquely guilty. So the cases of real apartheid in the world, like Lebanese treatment of Palestinians, or Chinese of Uyghurs, others - are shunted aside and not given that label. Real victims suffer. 

When you look at all the evidence and history (the Soviets made up the "Israel is apartheid" accusation originally) the desire to paint Israel with the label of apartheid has NOTHING to do with real facts, and everything to do with a desire to demonize the Jewish state. This is antisemitism, plain and simple. 

My response received over 500 "Likes" and Zogby finally felt he could no longer ignore it, so he attempted to prove that, yes, Israel really is guilty of apartheid:

1. It’s apartheid when when Israel has two systems of law - one for Arabs & one for Jews; when they’ve expelled 750,000 from their homes & refuse to let them go back to their properties; when they’ve demolished 500 Palestinian villages, seized their land & businesses;…  

To which I immediately responded:

Israel doesn't have two systems of law for citizens. 

And what happened in 1948 was a war for survival, not apartheid. 

But you know that. And lie anyway.

 And, of course, by your definition every Arab country that expelled nearly all of their Jews are guilty of apartheid.

Not my definition - YOURS.

Trying to shoehorn a new definition of the term to fit Israel only is indeed antisemitic.

He responded:

 It was a deliberate planned expulsion to remove Arabs from the Galilee, the coastal cites and areas around Jerusalem. Ben Gurion’s letters, Moshe Sharret’s diaries, & others have testified to this fact. & what they did afterwards to those whom they expelled made the intent clear

To which I said:

 Then why are there still two million Arabs in Israel? If there was a policy to expel them, what is taking Israel so long?

And how does that relate to the LEGAL DEFINITION OF APARTHEID? I am giving a legal argument, you are throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks.

He doubled down:

2…when they have laws that provide that the Arab land they’ve seized & turned over to Jews can never be sold to Arabs; when they continue to seize Palestinian land to build Jewish-only housing & infrastructure, while Palestinians struggle to get permits to build;…

3…when any Jew can immigrate & become a citizen while descendants of those who were expelled cannot; when Israel has multiple laws & policies in place to control what they call the “demographic problem” - that is limiting or controlling the growth of the non-Jewish population…

4. These policies & laws that favor the rights of one group at the expense of Palestinians , constitutes Apartheid. You may not like it, but don’t deny it. Have you no regard for the humanity of Palestinians; no compassion for the discriminatory polices to which they subjected?

But then he moved the goalposts:

5. The problem isn’t our calling Israeli behaviors Apartheid. To try to make that the issue is an effort to deflect. The problem is Israel’s behavior - that’s what must change. And stop resorting to calling antiSemitic anyone who criticizes Israel & defends Palestinian rights.

Zogby's entire argument, repeated at least three times, was "Israel is apartheid!" Yet when challenged, he changed it  to "Don't get hung up on the precise definition of apartheid!"

So I called him on it:

No, I am saying when Amnesty or HRW claims Israel is guilty of apartheid, they are lying because it has a specific definition.  You know that I am right. Which is why you are changing the subject.

By your argument, every Arab state is guilty of apartheid, because they define themselves as Arab and discriminate against non-Arabs for citizenship. 

Tell me, are they guilty of apartheid or not? And why not?

You won't answer because you want to say ONLY Jews are guilty.

Yes, it is antisemitic to say that the Jewish people do not have the right to self-determination. It is antisemitic to apply terms like "apartheid" ONLY to the Jewish state. It is antisemitic to have one standard for the world and another for Israel. 

This thread proves it.

James Zogby, the great intellectual defender of Arabs and highly regarded figure in Democratic Party politics, responded....by blocking me on Twitter.

In the end, even the most articulate critics of Israel and defenders of Palestinian intransigence know that they are using their intellectual gifts not in the service of truth but for lies.  They assume that their ability to use propaganda methods and gaslighting is the same as real arguments. (For their antisemitic fans, it actually is.)  

When their hypocrisy is clearly called out, outside their usual bubble, they try to reframe their arguments to what they think is more solid ground. 

When called on that, they are left with only one recourse: shutting down the discussion. 

When an anonymous blogger can so thoroughly dismantle the arguments of one of America's leading Arab intellectuals in the constrained format of Twitter, it shows that the anti-Israel side has no argument to begin with. 

Their running away from debate proves that they know it, too.

---

---

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

04/27 Links Pt2: Human Rights Watch Report Maligns Israel with Lies on Top of Lies; For many French Jews, Halimi murder a ‘watershed moment’ of distrust in France

From Ian:

Human Rights Watch: Israel commits crime of apartheid, UN must apply sanctions

The right-wing Israeli group NGO Monitor condemned the apartheid accusations, saying they were part of larger global campaign to discredit Israel and undermine its identity as a Jewish state.

“HRW’s report is part of a concerted NGO campaign over the past 18 months to interject the term ‘apartheid’ into discourse about Israel,” it said. “Indeed, HRW reiterates, cites and quotes many of these NGOs in its publication.”

“In a broader context, this report is another move in the decades-long series of obsessive attacks against Israel and its legitimacy as the nation-state of the Jewish people,” NGO Monitor said.

HRW’s report distanced its accusation of apartheid from any comparisons with South African apartheid, which is often used to discredit that claim.

Instead, HRW spoke of a three-pronged definition based on the Rome Statute: an intent to maintain racial domination by one group over another; a context of systematic oppression of one group over another; and inhumane acts.

Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, both within and outside sovereign Israel, met this definition of the crimes of apartheid, HRW said. The report did not take direct issue with Israel’s identity as an ethnically national Jewish state. But as an example of discrimination, it cited Israel’s Law of Return, which grants citizenship to Jews who want to immigrate to Israel. Palestinian refugees and their descendants who had lived on territory now under Israeli sovereignty did not have that same right of return, it said.

New @kohelet report debunks @HRW's propaganda doc on Israel: a mix of lies and fantasies; an alternate reality where the Palestinian Authority doesn't exist, terrorism doesn't exist, and Israel agreeing to the "Right of Return" amounts to Apartheid https://t.co/Q7h0nLSjiP

— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) April 26, 2021

Gerald Steinberg: Human Rights Watch demonizes Israel via propaganda of apartheid - opinion

Beyond South Africa, no other regime or government has been deemed to meet the international definition of apartheid, not even murderous and oppressive regimes practicing separation based on race, religion, and gender such as Saudi Arabia and China.

In pursuing this 20-year campaign, HRW, led by Kenneth Roth, has continuously invoked the “Israel apartheid” theme, including playing a central role in the notoriously antisemitic NGO Forum at the 2001 UN Durban conference. The final declaration referred to Israel and apartheid repeatedly, and called for the “complete international isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.”

After members of HRW’s board criticized this involvement, Roth replied cynically: “Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic.” Roth and other top officials have repeated the apartheid and racist smears frequently since then. In one of many examples, in the context of the 2017 white supremacist march and violence in Charlottesville, Roth tweeted a link to a propaganda piece headlined “Birds of a feather: White supremacy and Zionism.” He included a picture depicting a Confederate and Israeli flag, commenting, “Many rights activists condemn Israeli abuse & antisemitism. Some white supremacists embrace Israel & antisemitism.”

A major addition to the usual allegations is that the planned annexation of parts of the West Bank controlled by Israel under the Oslo framework (the strategic and sparsely populated Area C) constitutes apartheid (repeated 32 times in the HRW text). Indeed, at the time when Israeli officials made such statements, HRW and the NGOs issued a wave of apartheid condemnations. Now, even though the annexation was dropped, the condemnations remain, again demonstrating the centrality of slogans over substance.

In 2009, HRW founder Robert Bernstein, writing in The New York Times, took on his organization, criticizing the leaders for losing their moral compass, and “issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.” Many years later, and with much larger budgets and visibility, the organization’s delegitimization continues.

Ben-Dror Yemini: A most dangerous and mendacious report

Let us imagine for just one moment that an Iranian official penned a damning report on human rights in Sweden, or a member of the American far-right wrote about the Democratic Party in the U.S.

Would anyone take such a document seriously?

But we are expected to all take heed of "A Threshold Crossed," a new report criticizing Israel written by Omar Shakir, who heads the Israeli-Palestinian desk at Human Rights Watch.

Shakir is a provocateur and a quarrel-monger, who has spent more than a decade campaigning to deny Israel's right to exist.

He actually resided in Israel until the Supreme Court revoked his residency permit when the scale of his actions against the very existence of the State of Israel was revealed.

He was also denied entry to Bahrain when he wanted to attend a FIFA conference solely to persuade the organization to boycott the Israeli national soccer team.

Shakir's abysmal hatred of Israel is evident even when compared to the established hostility of other bodies branding themselves as "human rights organizations."

As far back as 2010, Shakir was urging the Palestinians to abandon the right to self-determination and instead adopt the terminology of apartheid and universal rights in order to make a single binational state a reality.

In 2015, he signed a petition opposing a visit to Israel by a group of Muslims who were supposed to be guests of the Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.

It goes without saying that Shakir is a clear supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, an organization whose leaders do not try to disguise the fact that they are working for not peace but for the elimination of Israel.

Read More

From Fake News To Fake International Law: Claiming Israel Is Apartheid (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

It is nothing new for self-described experts in international law to join together to accuse Israel of evil.

A year ago, critics came out of the woodwork to claim that Israel had an obligation, under international law, to provide free Covid vaccines for all of the Palestinian Arabs under the Palestinian Authority. They pointed to Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, claiming it proved that Israel, as an "occupying power" bore responsibility for public health. In his article, Fake International Law Is the Newest Anti-Israel Libel, Eugene Kontorovich pointed out that those making this claim overlooked -- or ignored -- the Oslo accords, which provide that the "powers and responsibilities in the sphere of Health in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be transferred to the Palestinian sides." He went on to explain that even on its own terms, the Fourth Geneva Convention would not apply.

Kontorovich also noted that among those who mistakenly claimed that Israel was obligated to provide Covid vaccines were Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

HRW and Amnesty International?

Those are the 2 "human rights groups," along with B'tselem, who are now twisting international law in order to accuse Israel of Apartheid.

But first some context.

This is not the first time we have seen international law weaponized to attack Israel. Far from it. We have seen misleading statements and inaccurate analyses. But we have also seen fake international law, where there is one standard for the rest of the world and a different standard or interpretation when it comes to Israel.

In his 2013 article, Manipulating International Law as Part of Anti-Israeli “Lawfare,” Robbie Sabel -- a member of the law faculty at Hebrew University, found no less than 10 examples where international law is manipulated in order to attack and discredit Israel.

Here is a condensed version of his 10 examples, including the "apartheid wall" (#5):

1. UN General Assembly Resolutions

UN General Assembly resolutions are merely recommendations and are therefore not binding. Just as they are not binding, those resolutions do not create actual international law -- and a state cannot be held to be "guilty" of violating them. 

Sabel notes:

the claim is frequently heard that Israel is “violating” General Assembly resolutions. Apparently there is an interpretation of the UN Charter that is applicable only to Israel.

2. UN Security Council Resolutions

Just as with General Assembly resolutions, Security Council resolutions are not binding -- unless the council invokes Chapter VII of the charter, declaring that there has been an act of aggression by a state or that a state’s action is a threat to world peace or security:

The Security Council has never made such a declaration regarding Israel, nor for that matter has it ever made such a declaration regarding Arab aggression against Israel. 

The Security Council, like the General Assembly, is a political body. Its resolutions are political statements, not legal judgments.

3. “Illegal” Military Occupation

In armed conflict, international law clearly allows military occupation. That may explain why the UN Security Council has never declared Israeli occupation to be illegal, knowing that occupation is legal in the case of an armed conflict. That was the case with the Allied occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII, and the US occupation of Iraq after the Second Gulf War -- the legality of the latter was explicitly confirmed by the Security Council.

Nevertheless:

The fact that Israel was acting legally has not, however, deterred its detractors from attempts to attach to Israeli activity the invented new international legal concept of “illegal occupation.”

4. The “Right of Return” of Arab Refugees

According to international law, a state's nationals have a "right of return" and the state, therefore, must allow its nationals into its territory. Some believe that right should also apply to permanent residents, but no state seems to have adopted such a position. Governments interpret the rule as meaning that the right applies only to nationals.

There has been an attempt, however, to repurpose this into “a well-established norm in international law and practice” which gives a right to all Palestinian Arab refugees to “return” to Israel, even though they are neither nationals nor permanent residents of Israel.

In the case of Palestinian Arabs, the very term refugee has been redefined to include all direct descendants, to the extent that:

The Arab claim is now that even though the person involved was born in another country as were his parents and grandparents and they may be nationals of another state and permanent residents of another state, nevertheless international law grants them a right to “return” to Israel. 

5. "Apartheid Wall"

The separation fence built by Israel as a defensive measure against terrorist attacks is often referred to by critics as being a "wall" -- and by some even as an "apartheid wall." They point to the decision of the International Court of Justice in December 2003 that the fence is illegal according to international law.

What the court did not do, however, was make any reference or analogy whatsoever to apartheid. Neither did the court deny that Israel had the right to build such a fence in the interests of security. What the court criticized was the route along which Israel built the fence.

Noting how the various apartheid laws In South Africa were based on racial segregation, Sabel wrote at the time that

The crux of the accusation against Israel lies in the often-repeated charge that its racism “is symbolized most clearly in Israel’s Jewish flag, anthem and state holidays.” The accusers have not a word of criticism against the tens of liberal democratic states that have Christian crosses incorporated in their flags, nor against the numerous Muslim states with the half-crescent symbol of Islam as their state symbol. Again, there appears to be a special legal definition of apartheid where Israel is concerned. [emphis added]

6. The Legal Status of The "Green Line"

The 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Demarcation Line, known as the “Green Line,” is often used as the basis for negotiating a border between Israel and a future Palestinian state. But it is only an Armistice Demarcation Line, and when Israel and Jordan signed their peace agreement in 1994, the two countries mutually acknowledged the termination of the Armistice Agreement. 

In accordance with international law, international boundaries survive the demise of the treaties that established them. This, however, is not true of ceasefire or armistice-demarcation lines. The temporary nature of a ceasefire or armistice line is such that their validity expires with the expiration of the ceasefire or armistice. Therefore, formally, there is no longer any legal validity to the Green Line.

Yet the "Green Line" is often manipulatively presented as a legally binding border.

7. Commissions of Inquiry

When the US, UK or any other democratic state establishes a judicial committee of inquiry to investigate their armed forces, world opinion views it as a reflection of that countries democratic values.

Nevertheless, when Israel sets up such a judicial commission of inquiry, it nearly automatically encounters demands that the commission must include non-Israeli participation. Thus, apparently, there is one international rule for Israeli commissions of inquiry and a different one for the rest of the world.

8. “Occupied” Gaza 

Noting that Gaza is completely under Hamas control and subject to Hamas-created laws, Sabel points out that according to international law, for Gaza to be considered under Israeli occupation, it would have to be placed under its authority -- something it clearly is not. The blockade, which is in place for security reasons to prevent arm shipments from entering Gaza, does not constitute occupation.

Even according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC):

occupation could not be established or maintained solely through the exercise of power from beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory; a certain number of foreign ‘boots on the ground’ were required.

And yet the ICRC continues to contradict itself and maintain that Gaza is in fact occupied -- proving, according to Sabel:

Again, there appears to be a unique definition of “occupation” applicable only to Israel.

9. Laws of Armed Conflict

Here, there are 2 areas where international law depends on whether or not Israel is involved:

(1) Disproportionate Force

There are 2 requirements of proportionality in armed combat according to international law:

1. It is prohibited to attack a military target if it will cause civilian casualties that are excessive in relation to the military advantage to be obtained.
2. Measures of self-defense must be proportionate to the threat.

And then there is the third requirement.
The one that applies only to Israel:

3. Israel must not use weapons that are not proportionate to the weapons used by terrorist groups

For every other army on the planet, it is understood that they will use superior force and arms against the enemy. 

(2) Civilian casualties

Although civilian casualties are practically unavoidable in times of war -- especially when weapons are kept in civilian areas, as is the practice of both Hamas and Hezbollah -- deliberately targeting civilians is a violation of international law.

However, as far as Israel is concerned, any enemy civilian casualties are presented as the result of a “war crime,” even though it is acknowledged that Israel takes immense steps to try and prevent and minimize civilian casualties.

10. Self-Defense Only against Attacks from States 

Article 51 of the UN Charter, recognizes the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

But in the context of its decision on the separation fence, mentioned above, the ICJ came to the conclusion that Article 51 required that an attack must originate from a foreign state itself and not from terrorists operating from a foreign state -- although there is no mention in the UN Charter of such a requirement.

Sabel writes:

This strange dictum of the court has not been followed by other states, and one academic writer notes that “State practice strongly suggests that the international community has recognized a right to use force in self-defense targeting nonstate actors in foreign territory to the extent that the foreign state cannot be relied on to prevent or suppress terrorist activities.

These examples show a clear and consistent pattern of reinterpreting international law when it comes to Israel.

When NGO's like B'tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International recently attacked Israel as an apartheid state, they again resorted to the fake international law, even going beyond the accusation of apartheid that Sabel addressed.

A key issue, of course, is to first define what actually constitutes apartheid.

The challenge facing these groups is that South Africa has served as a model for what apartheid looks like, but that makes apartheid into a matter of racial discrimination, which would not apply to Israel's dealing with Palestinian Arabs.

So, as Elder of Ziyon illustrates, B'tselem fudged the definition in a leading question when it foisted their definition in a poll:

“A regime in which one group controls, and perpetuates its control over another, through laws, practices and coercive/forced means is considered an apartheid regime. In your opinion, does this description fit or it doesn’t fit Israel?”

This definition is of B'tselem's own invention, neatly sidestepping the Rome Convention, according to which

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; [emphasis added]

According to B'tselem, that definition applies to everyone else. But for Israel, international law can be fabricated so that it bypasses the inconvenient issue of race.

Human Rights Watch goes a step further. In addition to the Rome Statute, HRW includes The Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (the Apartheid Convention) which defines apartheid

“which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa” – as covering “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”. [emphasis added]

But HRW then claims an expanded definition of "race" based on The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which defines "racial discrimination" in Article 1(1) as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin" [emphasis added] -- which would then apply to the Palestinian Arabs.

This is where Elder of Ziyon notes that HRW deliberately omitted Article 1(2) which immediately follows:

This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens. [emphasis added]

The point is that the expanded definition of racial discrimination according to ICERD itself does not apply to the distinctions/restrictions that a country makes between their own citizens and non-citizens, something that countries around the world commonly do. In Israel's case, this applies to Palestinian Arabs living under the Palestinian Authority who are not citizens of Israel. Under ICERD, Israeli distinctions and restrictions on Palestinian Arabs would not automatically qualify as apartheid.

Amnesty International tries its hand as well to shoehorn Israel into being an apartheid state. 

Like HRW, Amnesty International refers to ICERD too, but deserts HRW, admitting "it does not explicitly define apartheid." Instead, they claim that they are the ones that have found the law that proves Israel is Apartheid:

The public international law prohibition of apartheid is best found in an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice relating to South Africa’s presence in Namibia, where the violation is defined as “distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and limitations exclusively based on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which constitute a denial of fundamental human rights.”

The problem is that the ICJ was addressing the issue of apartheid -- it was addressing whether South Africa was in violation of the UN Charter or not:

130. It is undisputed, and is amply supported by documents annexed to South Africa's written statement in these proceedings, that the official governmental policy pursued by South Africa in Namibia is to achieve a complete physical separation of races and ethnic groups in separate areas within the Territory...

131. Under the Charter of the United Nations, the former Mandatory had pledged itself to observe and respect, in a territory having an international status, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race. To establish instead, and to enforce, distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and limitations exclusively based on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which constitute a denial of fundamental human rights is a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter. [emphasis added]

The ICJ found not that those racial distinctions were apartheid, but rather that there was a violation of the UN Charter.

Once again, as it did in the case of Israel's separation fence, the ICJ again did not call the issue before it a case of "apartheid."

This difficulty that B'tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have in finding a straightforward definition of apartheid that they can apply to Israel may explain odd comments they make on just what they are trying to do.

Eugene Kontorovich writes that what Btselem claims clinched the deal, actually did anything but: 

Btselem says what has sent Israel over the brink to Apartheid is the Nation State Law and political discussions about applying Israeli law to the West Bank (“annexation”). This is perhaps their most ludicrous statement.

Kontorovich's reasoning is that first of all, the Nation State Law was not an apartheid law. Its provisions relating to national identity are similar to those in many European democracies and secondly, "annexation" has nothing to do with apartheid.

Meanwhile, HRW claims their report

does not set out to compare Israel with South Africa under apartheid or to determine whether Israel is an “apartheid state”—a concept that is not defined in international law. Rather, the report assesses whether specific acts and policies carried out by Israeli authorities today amount in particular areas to the crimes of apartheid and persecution as defined under international law.

It is not at all obvious that HRW avoids comparisons to South Africa out of principle or simply because any comparison to South Africa invalidates their argument.

Amnesty International also makes a point of insisting they are not comparing Israel to South Africa:

Amnesty International notes and clarifies that systems of oppression and domination will never be identical. Therefore, it does not seek to argue that, or assess whether, any system of oppression and domination as perpetrated in Israel and the OPT is, for instance, the same or analogous to the system of segregation, oppression and domination as perpetrated in South Africa between 1948 and 1994. [emphasis added]

To which Elliot Kaufman of the Wall Street Journal responds:

Not even analogous? Then why use the word “apartheid” at all?

Good question.
But we all know the answer to that --

As then-CEO Jessica Montell pointed out in a 2003 interview:

I think the word apartheid is useful for mobilizing people because of its emotional power

Looks like we'll have to expand on Sabel's list.

---

---

Read More

Our Enemies Deploy the Cognitive Bomb (Vic Rosenthal)

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

 

The first thing you need to know about the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that was released on 27 April accusing Israel of “apartheid” is that the accusation has nothing to do with apartheid as most people understand it, the racially-based system of oppression that was in place in South Africa before roughly 1991.

HRW is accusing Israel of “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution,” which are defined by a treaty called the “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,” based on a UN General Assembly resolution passed in 1973, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

It should be noted that neither Israel nor the USA are parties to either treaty. The 1973 convention was signed by 109 countries, which do not include Israel, the USA, Canada, Australia, or any of the developed countries of Western Europe.

Here is the definition of the crime of apartheid as understood by HRW:

1. An intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another.
2. A context of systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group.
3. Inhumane acts.

The “inhumane acts” referred to by the definition include such things as murder, torture, “arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment,” forced labor, “deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part,” all on the basis of race or ethnicity. While Palestinians often claim such mistreatment, their claims – often amplified and lent authority (the “halo effect”) by HRW and similar NGOs – are overwhelmingly false, exaggerated, or lacking in context (e.g., the claim is commonly made that a Palestinian was “executed” when he was shot in the act of stabbing a Jew or running one down with a car).

HRW also adds that

The reference to a racial group is understood today to address not only treatment on the basis of genetic traits but also treatment on the basis of descent and national or ethnic origin, as defined in the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Human Rights Watch applies this broader understanding of race.

In other words, apartheid doesn’t have to involve “race.” Any alleged discrimination against a national group can be considered apartheid. And given that “Palestinians” have diverse origins, including Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and even the same Canaanite tribes as the forbears of the Jewish people, they don’t even fit this broader definition.

When I hear “apartheid” I think of white, black, and colored beaches and restrooms, laws against interracial marriage or even sexual relationships, laws establishing segregated housing, employment, and public transportation, denial of the right to vote or hold office, and so forth. I think of official classification of people by color. It is not an exaggeration to say that such a system, brutally imposed by force (as it was in South Africa), is a crime against humanity.
And that, of course, is why HRW, an organization that has changed over the years from a legitimate human rights watchdog into part of the well-oiled (and thickly greased with dollars and euros) machine for the delegitimization and demonization of Israel, wishes to accuse the Jewish state of apartheid, a crime that today evokes revulsion throughout the world – and which, following the precedent set by the treatment of the Republic of South Africa, justifies the boycotting, sanctioning, and total expulsion from the international order of Israel.

As the Kohelet Forum notes in its response to the report, no country other than South Africa has ever been deemed an “apartheid state” by a majority of the international community, including China, Sudan, and others that have engaged in massive systematic oppression of minorities.
None of the characteristics of South African apartheid can reasonably be applied to Israel. Everyone who knows anything about apartheid South Africa and Israel knows that. There is simply no resemblance, and HRW’s abstraction of the crime of apartheid and application of the word to Israel is dishonest and is part of the cognitive war that is being waged against her as a prelude to her hoped for physical destruction.

But never mind. Israel is being accused of seriously mistreating Palestinian Arabs, both its Arab citizens and the residents of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza, simply because they are Palestinians. If that is true, it is certainly reprehensible. So we should consider if the report even succeeds in making that case.

The report is 213 pages long, so it is impossible for me to critique it in detail in a short blog. But here are some things that I noticed in the first few pages (see the Kohelet response to HRW for more):

The report says that

From 1967 until the present, [Israel] has militarily ruled over Palestinians in the OPT, excluding East Jerusalem. By contrast, it has since its founding governed all Jewish Israelis, including settlers in the OPT since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, under its more rights-respecting civil law.

This is untrue. There is no military government in Gaza – there is zero Israeli presence there at all – and areas A and B of Judea and Samaria are ruled by the PA. There is a military administration of Area C, the territory that is under full Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords, but that administration governs both Israeli communities and Palestinian ones. There is no “separate law” for the two populations.

In general, the report ignores the existence of the PA and the Hamas government of Gaza. It’s true that Israel controls the borders and airspace between the river and the sea (with the exception of the border between Gaza and Egypt). But it does not control the daily lives of all of the residents of those areas as the report asserts.

HRW criticizes Israel for not allowing free movement of Palestinian Arabs from the territories into pre-1967 Israel, and for not allowing those Arabs outside of Israel recognized by the UN as “Palestinian refugees” to enter the territories or pre-1967 Israel. It dismisses Israeli explanations that this is a consequence of the amply-demonstrated Palestinian propensity to commit murderous terrorist acts against Israelis, saying “[e]ven when security forms part of the motivation, it no more justifies apartheid and persecution than it would excessive force or torture.” Tell it to those thousands of Israelis who have lost friends and family members to Palestinian terrorists.

There is almost no mention of Palestinian terrorism throughout the full report, even though most restrictions placed on Palestinian movement, such as the Judea/Samaria security barrier, were instituted after the murderous Second Intifada, in which more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered by terrorists. The selective blockade of Gaza is criticized without reference to the thousands of rockets that have been fired into Israeli towns, or the numerous tunnels intended to infiltrate terrorists into Israel. There is no mention of the 2015-2018 “stabbing intifada” which took the lives of dozens of Israelis.

The report claims that within pre-1967 Israel, “Palestinian [sic] citizens [have] a status inferior to Jewish citizens by law” as a result of the Nation-State Law, which in fact does not restrict them in any way, and which is similar to constitutional provisions in other ethnic nation-states, including the proposed constitution for the State of Palestine. It also invents or misrepresents other laws, including those concerning citizenship and residence.

The report will probably be a prime exhibit in the upcoming “Durban IV” conference on racism which will be held this September at the UN in New York, on the 20^th anniversary of the first Durban conference, which devolved into an “anti-Israel hate-fest.”

Accusations of apartheid and persecution are tremendously powerful, especially in the US in today’s climate of racial antagonisms. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually a national/political one, and not a racial one (although antisemitism plays an important role). It has little in common with pre-1991 South Africa or the racial problems of the USA. It is also a small part of a much larger project by a group of nations, international institutions, NGOs, and others to eliminate the Jewish state. These antagonists are motivated by geopolitics, religion, ideology, antisemitism, or all of these. By focusing only on the Palestinians, the HRW report has the effect of hiding this broader context.

Israel’s domestic political paralysis, which has been ongoing for at least two years, makes it hard enough to respond to the military challenges it faces from its enemies. But it is impossible for an essentially leaderless nation to properly fight a cognitive war. Fixing this has to be Israel’s top priority today.

Read More

Human Rights Watch @HRW again absurdly calls distinguishing between Israelis and non-citizens "apartheid"

Human Rights Watch has dug up another angle to tar Israel with the label "apartheid," and it is just as false and scurrilous as all its others.

Sari Bashi, special advisor to HRW, a wrote this article in The New Arab that HRW republished on its own site:

In an October 27 ruling, the Supreme Court denied tax-exempt status to an Israeli-registered group running a school in the West Bank because the school educates Palestinian, not Israeli, children. The precedent-setting decision imposes financial burdens on civil society groups providing services to Palestinians, including groups that step in to fulfill responsibilities that the Israeli government, the occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza, has flouted.

The court's ruling means that Israeli-registered groups operating in the West Bank will get tax breaks if they provide services to Jewish Israelis living in unlawful settlements, but not if they provide services to Palestinians living under military occupation in the same territory.

These are the facts that arise from the court ruling: For the past three decades, the Society of Islamic Sciences and Cultural Committee has run schools in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including in East Jerusalem. The Society submits regular reports to the Israeli nonprofit registrar. In 2004, as Israeli authorities built a barrier that cuts East Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank, the organization closed its Jerusalem schools and maintained just one school, in Bir Nabala, a West Bank Palestinian town inside an enclave surrounded by walls and fences.

The separation barrier severs Bir Nabala from East Jerusalem and requires residents to access the rest of the West Bank through gates in the barrier and tunnels dug underneath it. Major roads in Bir Nabala, formerly commercial arteries, now reach a dead-end in an eight-meter-high concrete wall. After closing its Jerusalem properties, the Society rented them out to another educational organization, for a contracted annual sum of about US$600,000.

Section 9(2) of the Israeli Income Tax Ordinance exempts nonprofit organizations from income tax if they perform a "public purpose," such as education. The ordinance does not specify a geographical scope for those services, and organizations serving Jewish residents of unlawful Israeli settlements in the West Bank receive Israeli income tax and other tax benefits.

Israeli Supreme Court Justices Isaac Amit, David Mintz, and Alex Stein ruled unanimously that the Society must pay tax on its rental income because running a school for Palestinian children in the West Bank is not a "public purpose" that the Israeli government will indirectly subsidize through the tax exemption. 

Although the international law of occupation and international human rights law obligate Israel to ensure that Palestinian children in the West Bank are able to get quality education, and although the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction in Area C, where the school is located, the court found that educational services in Bir Nabala have no "link" to Israel for purposes of the tax law.

The court ruling itself explains its reasons, and of course HRW downplays or ignores them. Here, the ruling summarizes the finding from the District Court that it upheld.

On 30.10.2020 the District Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that a "public institution", as defined in the ordinance, is an existing member of society and acts for a public purpose, and that the wording of the ordinance makes no explicit reference to the connection between public activity and the State of Israel and the public in Israel. Therefore, the court moved to examine the purpose of section 9 (2) of the Ordinance. The court noted that the recognition of a body as a public institution for the purposes of section 9 (2) of the Ordinance is the same as an expense distributed from the state coffers and it constitutes indirect financing of the activities of that institution by the state. Given the general nature of the definition in the Ordinance, there is a concern that without a restrictive interpretive policy the dam will be breached and state resources will be distributed without adequate control. The purpose of the legislation therefore requires a narrow interpretation of the term "public institution", so that it will also include a component of affiliation with Israel. In the absence of such an element, the range of cases to which the section will apply will be construed far beyond the original intention of the legislature. The extension of the range of cases to which section 9 (2) of the Ordinance also applies in cases where there is no connection to the State of Israel may harm the public coffers and in fact constitute a tax benefit for entities that promote purposes that do not contribute to the State of Israel and the Israeli public. The court noted that beyond the substantive consideration, there is also a systemic consideration leading to the said result, since the state does not have the ability to effectively monitor public institutions operating in areas beyond its control.

The Israeli tax code specifies that non-profits must serve a "public purpose." The court rulings were that since tax breaks indirectly subsidize the activities of the organizations, the interpretation of "public purpose" must be made restrictively or else the Israeli public could end up subsidizing activities around the world or even those that could be covers for terrorism. 

The court ruling defines "public purpose" as being either inside Israel or serving Israeli citizens or residents. It makes clear that if the students at the school are Israeli residents (Arabs of East Jerusalem) then the school indeed would be tax exempt - but the organization brought no evidence of this.

This means that within parts of Jerusalem outside the Green Line, there are plenty of tax-exempt organizations that serve Arabs. It is proof that the policy is not "apartheid" but a reasonable distinction between citizens and non-citizens that every nation on the planet has.

The Beit Safafa Primary School B is outside the Green Line. It exclusively serves Arabs in Jerusalem whom HRW call "Palestinians." It is accredited by Israel's Ministry of Education. It has the full support of the State of Israel.  It proves that there is no discrimination against Arabs.

HRW adds irrelevant facts like Israel is responsible to ensure that Arabs in Area C get an education under "occupation." But that has nothing to do with tax law. Israel is not closing or threatening the school. 

HRW also claims that there are indeed some Jerusalem residents (not citizens) who moved to Bir Nabala and send their children to this school, but they did not want to say this publicly because then the families might be subject to losing their Israel residency status for leaving Jerusalem. Even if this is true, the court can only rule based on evidence, and for HRW to demand that the Israeli High Court ignore the facts brought before it is fairly ridiculous.

HRW terms this legal ruling to be "apartheid:"

The court decision is a binding precedent and a departure from previous practices. It places a financial burden on Israeli-registered groups that serve Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and is the latest example of Israel's highest court rubber-stamping discriminatory practices that contribute to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution,  under an overall policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians, even in matters of education.

As with every single other charge by HRW, this is false and slanderous. Israeli law has been completely consistent that Arab citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel are treated equally, no matter which side of the Green Line they live in. It is not apartheid - it is saying that citizens and residents have rights that non-citizens do not. That is not apartheid by any definition. 

Finally, HRW betrays its own hypocrisy. 

Israel has the right to define its criteria for non-profit tax status, as does every other country. The US has its own more expansive definition that says that educational and cultural institutions can be tax exempt for activities worldwide. But Human Rights Watch has demanded that the US restrict its own definitions of tax exemption to exclude non-profits that pay for services for Jews who live in Judea and Samaria! 

While HRW claims that legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens in tax laws are apartheid, it also demands a policy of excluding Jews - and only Jews - from the US definition of non-profit. 

There is no apartheid in Israel. But there sure is antisemitism in Human Rights Watch.  

One final note: The original article was, as noted, published in The New Arab, a virulently anti-Israel publication that HRW has no problem promoting. Here is its illustration for the article:

The caption says that the Israeli High Court is in "occupied Jerusalem."

It is two kilometers west from the Green Line.  If it is in occupied territory, then all of Israel is "occupied."

Meaning that HRW promotes the position that Israel altogether is illegitimate. 

---

---

Read More