The Forward Opinion Page Defends “Pay-to-Slay”
Last December, the Forward gaslit Jews with the claim that “‘From The River To The Sea’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means,” an opinion piece by University of Arizona professor Maha Nassar. In January, the publication gave space to Ariel Gold, an activist with the pro-Iran, pro-Maduro group Code Pink, to advocate for housing discrimination against Jews. This month, the publication once again defies all credible expectations, hitting yet another new low with justifications for Palestinian Authority payments to terrorists who murder Jews. (“Does The Palestinian Authority ‘Pay To Slay’ Jews? Here’s How We Palestinians See It,” July 10.)BDS, Omar Shakir, and Israel Eliminationism
In the second paragraph, author Muhammad Shehada claims “Pay to Slay” is a “canard” that has been debunked by the Washington Post. This is grossly dishonest. The Post fact-check to which he refers took issue only with the claimed total amount of the payments, $350 million, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted in a speech – but the Post’s piece acknowledges, without caveat, that such payments are in fact being made: “the State Department, by law, already deducts from its Palestinian aid budget a figure that represents the amount of money the Palestinian Authority pays to people convicted of terrorism. The exact number is classified ….”
The same Post article continues, “in the Palestinian Authority’s budget, one can find $350 million in annual payments to Palestinian prisoners, ‘martyrs’ and injured, but can one with certainty say they are all terrorists?”
BDS and the accompanying delegitimization are also closely correlated with violent attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions. Data published by the UK Community Security Trust (CST) shows that when reports of clashes in Gaza increase, often quoting accusations from HRW and other NGOs, the number of antisemitic incidents also goes up. HRW and other members of the NGO network ignore the antisemitic implications of their campaigns.
To promote this demonizing agenda, Shakir and other BDS campaigners need to sell the defamatory mythology that Zionism, unique among nationalisms, is racism; that Israel is a uniquely evil pariah (racist, apartheid, genocidal) state - worse than Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, China; and that Israel uniquely fits the description of a “colonial settler state” that deserves to be eliminated. HRW and BDS allies have not invested resources in campaigns to boycot Russia over the occupation in Ukraine; or China regarding Tibet and the suppression of human rights in Hong Kong; or Turkey over its occupation of northern Cyprus, to cite a few examples.
For these reasons, in 2009, Robert Bernstein, who founded HRW in the 1970s, condemned the leaders of his own organization in an opinion piece in the New York Times. HRW’s activities and biases, he declared, played a leading role in turning Israel into a pariah state. Later, he detailed the criticism of the bias, false accusations, and demonization. But Roth and the HRW Middle East division leaders, steeped in anti-Israel campaigns, expanded the efforts and hired BDS activist Shakir.
All of this is vital to the context of the case being heard in the High Court, and goes far beyond the legal issues of whether the State’s refusal to renew Shakir’s work visa is lawful. Antisemitism and eliminationism are moral and political concepts, and will remain even if Shakir is technically allowed to stay.
Regardless of the High Court’s decision, Shakir has been exposed as a major activist in the elimination campaign. And far beyond the legal arena, HRW and Shakir, like Corbyn and his ilk, are clearly in violation of basic moral norms.
NGO Monitor: Omar Shakir Fact Sheet
In October 2016, Human Rights Watch (HRW) hired Omar Shakir to serve as its “Israel and Palestine Country Director.” Shakir has been a consistent supporter of a one-state framework and advocate for BDS (boycotts, divestment, sanctions) campaigns, fitting the longstanding HRW practice of hiring anti-Israel activists to serve in key positions relating to Israel.High Court changes tune about quick hearing to expel HRW official
In May 2018, due to Shakir’s BDS ties, the Israeli Ministry of Interior chose not to renew his work visa. HRW and Shakir have been challenging this decision in Israeli courts. In April 2019, he lost his case in the Jerusalem District Court and immediately appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court. The hearing will take place on July 25, 2019. While Shakir regularly assails Israel for its “lack of democracy,” in fact, the Israeli courts allowed him to remain in the country during his appeal process despite having no obligation to do so.
Omar Shakir’s background and history of anti-Israel activity exemplifies the organization’s troubling ideological approach to Israel and retreat from the universal principles of human rights.
In a surprise move, the High Court of Justice postponed Thursday’s hearing on whether the Israel and Palestine director for Human Rights Watch could be deported for calls he made to boycott Israel.
After the court had earlier fast-tracked the case, the postponement left many scratching their heads.
Omar Shakir, the HRW official, has been fighting government efforts to use a 2017 law to expel him for his alleged support of boycotting Israel for 14 months. Shakir denies the charge, saying that he criticizes Israel in an attempt to improve its human rights record just as the HRW criticizes other countries.
Following a long battle before the Jerusalem District Court in which the government and a range of outside groups, such as NGO Monitor, obtained an order to expel him, Shakir appealed to the High Court. NGO Monitor is neutral on whether he must be expelled, but wants him to “own” his outlook.
The High Court appeared to side with Shakir by freezing the order to expel him, and pushing off the hearing until November. However, following additional efforts by the state and some of right-wing NGOs, the court was convinced to move up the date by nearly four months to July 25.
This decision itself was highly unusual, as the court typically delays cases and rarely expedites them. This makes the latest decision on Wednesday even rarer.