Push-Button Terminology

I will not argue with, counter, disprove or negate the content of this piece.

I will but simply highlight for you all the push-button terms in it that are intended to set off the alarm bells for liberals, sending them into harrowing concern, nervous tension and igniting under them hate and derision. Each one of them could have been written differently, less contentiously, but the author(s) had a specific goal in mind.

We are Israel's largest human rights group – and we are calling this apartheid

Hagai El-Ad

The systematic promotion of the supremacy of one group of people over another is deeply immoral and must end

Hagai El-Ad is executive director of B’Tselem

Israel’s controversial separation barrier at the Qalandia crossing between the Palestinian city of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem, December 2020. 

Tue 12 Jan 2021 

One cannot live a single day in Israel-Palestine without the sense that this place is constantly being engineered to privilege one people, and one people only: the Jewish people. Yet half of those living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are Palestinian. The chasm between these lived realities fills the air, bleeds, is everywhere on this land.

I am not simply referring to official statements spelling this out – and there are plenty, such as prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion in 2019 that “Israel is not a state of all its citizens”, or the “nation state” basic law enshrining “the development of Jewish settlement as a national value”. What I am trying to get at is a deeper sense of people as desirable or undesirable, and an understanding about my country that I have been gradually exposed to since the day I was born in Haifa. Now, it is a realisation that can no longer be avoided.

Although there is demographic parity between the two peoples living here, life is managed so that only one half enjoy the vast majority of political power, land resources, rights, freedoms and protections. It is quite a feat to maintain such disfranchisement. Even more so, to successfully market it as a democracy (inside the “green line” – the 1949 armistice line), one to which a temporary occupation is attached. In fact, one government rules everyone and everything between the river and the sea, following the same organising principle everywhere under its control, working to advance and perpetuate the supremacy of one group of people – Jews – over another – Palestinians. This is apartheid.

There is not a single square inch in the territory Israel controls where a Palestinian and a Jew are equal. The only first-class people here are Jewish citizens such as myself, and we enjoy this status both inside the 1967 lines and beyond them, in the West Bank. Separated by the different personal statuses allotted to them, and by the many variations of inferiority Israel subjects them to, Palestinians living under Israel’s rule are united by all being unequal.

Unlike South African apartheid, the application of our version of it – apartheid 2.0, if you will – avoids certain kinds of ugliness. You won’t find “whites only” signs on benches. Here, “protecting the Jewish character” of a community – or of the state itself – is one of the thinly veiled euphemisms deployed to try to obscure the truth. Yet the essence is the same. That Israel’s definitions do not depend on skin colour make no material difference: it is the supremacist reality which is the heart of the matter – and which must be defeated.

Until the passage of the nation state law, the key lesson Israel seemed to have learned from how South Africa’s apartheid ended was to avoid too-explicit statements and laws. These can risk bringing about moral judgments – and eventually, heaven forbid, real consequences. Instead, the patient, quiet, and gradual accumulation of discriminatory practices tends to prevent repercussions from the international community, especially if one is willing to provide lip service to its norms and expectations.

This is how Jewish supremacy on both sides of the green line is accomplished and applied.

We demographically engineer the composition of the population by working to increase the number of Jews and limit the number of Palestinians. We allow for Jewish migration – with automatic citizenship – to anywhere Israel controls. For Palestinians, the opposite is true: they cannot acquire personal status anywhere Israel controls – even if their family is from here.

We engineer power through the allocation – or denial – of political rights. All Jewish citizens get to vote (and all Jews can become citizens), but less than a quarter of the Palestinians under Israel’s rule have citizenship and can thus vote. On 23 March, when Israelis go and vote for the fourth time in two years, it will not be a “celebration of democracy” – as elections are often referred to. Rather, it will be yet another day in which disfranchised Palestinians watch as their future is determined by others.

We engineer land control by expropriating huge swaths of Palestinian land, keeping it off-limits for their development – or using it to build Jewish towns, neighbourhoods, and settlements. Inside the green line, we have been doing this since the state was established in 1948. In East Jerusalem and the West Bank, we have been doing this since the occupation began in 1967. The result is that Palestinian communities – anywhere between the river and the sea – face a reality of demolitions, displacement, impoverishment and overcrowding, while the same land resources are allocated for new Jewish development.

And we engineer – or rather, restrict – Palestinians’ movement. The majority, who are neither citizens nor residents, depend on Israeli permits and checkpoints to travel in and between one area and another, as well as to travel internationally. For the two million in the Gaza Strip travel restrictions are the most severe – this is not just a Bantustan, as Israel has made it one of the largest open-air prisons on Earth.

Haifa, my birth city, was a binational reality of demographic parity until 1948. Of some 70,000 Palestinians living in Haifa before the Nakba, less than a 10th were left afterwards. Almost 73 years have passed since then, and now Israel-Palestine is a binational reality of demographic parity. I was born here. I want – I intend – to stay. But I want – I demand – to live in a very different future.

The past is one of traumas and injustices. In the present, yet more injustices are constantly reproduced. The future must be radically different – a rejection of supremacy, built on a commitment to justice and our shared humanity. Calling things by their proper name – apartheid – is not a moment of despair: rather, it is a moment of moral clarity, a step on a long walk inspired by hope. See the reality for what it is, name it without flinching – and help bring about the realisation of a just future.

Again, the article errs, misrepresents, misleads, neglects history, twists facts and more. But that is so very obvious.

I decided to focuse this time on the messaging, the mind-prop.

^

Is Yael Stein Wrong?

Here is Yael Stein in Haaretz:

Israel suspended land registration in the West Bank, declared some 1 million dunams (more than 247,000 acres) as “state land” and allocated them nearly in their entirety to the settlements...That declaration was based on a skewed interpretation of the law and carried out in violation of the basic tenets of due process. Moreover, even if this were in fact public land, it was meant for the Palestinians, not the settlers, who were not supposed to be there: The entire settlement enterprise is prohibited and constitutes a war crime – a point that Hayut ignored...the subordination of the lives of the Palestinians to the needs of the settlers.

Ms. Stein 

Photo: Tony Cross

is the director of research at B’Tselem.

Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate decision reads:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

That decision's preamble reads:

...the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish peopler...recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

In addition, Article 11 reads:

The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and...shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country ...It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

Now, I ask you, is Stein correct in her assertion?

Or is she wrong?

^

World Vision's Partners in 'Coresistance'

That World Vision NGO that works with Hamas in Gaza?

Guess what:-

Source

Some other groups need investigation.

At least they should be clear about what merits they being awarded "co-resistance" titles.

(h/t)

UPDATE

What I tweeted,

^

Comment at Jessica Montell's Latest

I commented:

Jessica writes: "...the local population, i.e. the Palestinians" but (a) there are Jews there too and we aren't yet "Palestinians" and in fact, neither are they. They are Arabs, Arab residents in the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine. If you want to be consistent, Jordanians are 60% or more Palestinians. And then all of Israel's Arabs are Palestinians? Afetr all, there really isn't a country called Palestine. Yet, if at all.


(b) since Jews were there until ethnically cleansed during the Mandate period (from Hebron, Gaza, Nablus/Shchem, etc.) and during the 1948 war (Gush Etzion, Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, Bet HaAravah), certainly they also have needs which should be addressed.

(c) the League of Nations, in a decision of international law, awarded to the Jewish people the right that their close settlement on the land should be faciltiated on state and waste lands.

So, should not B'tselem care for and work for the human rights of...Jews?

Or is that too clannish?

^

B'tselem and NIF and the MFA on Transparency Legislation

As a colleague phrased it,

The Associate Director New Israel Fund believes that Israel should stop being a Jewish state — even in the basic sense of having a majority Jewish population — because only with a majority Arab population will it be truly democratic.


The New Israel for which the New Israel Fund strives is an Arab Israel.


The New Israel Fund believes that democracy forbids Jews being a majority in any state, even Israel.

In other words, I'm adding, the NIF is anti-Jewish Israel. 

You don't believe it.

You don't believe it?

Believe it:

From Wikileaks:-

¶6. (C) B'Tselem Director Jessica Montell, who estimated her 9 million NIS ($2.4 million) budget is 95 percent funded from abroad, mostly from European countries, told PolOff on February 10 that she did not believe the legislation would pass in its current form. ACRI's International Communication and Development Coordinator, Melanie Takefman, also told PolOff on February 10 that she believed the troublesome legislation would be amended and that the NGOs would likely be able to influence the draft legislation so that it would achieve its goal of greater transparency without restricting the NGOs' ability to operate. Both denied any need for greater transparency, but said they would welcome it if it applied equally to all NGOs, including NGO-Monitor and especially Jewish settler organizations.

¶7. (C) New Israel Fund (NIF) Associate Director in Israel Hedva Radovanitz, who manages grants to 350 NGOs totaling about 18 million dollars per year, told PolOff on February 23 that the campaign against the NGOs was due to the "disappearance of the political left wing" in Israel and the lack of domestic constituency for the NGOs. She noted that when she headed ACRI's Tel Aviv office, ACRI had 5,000 members, while today it has less than 800, and it was only able to muster about 5,000 people to its December human rights march by relying on the active staff of the 120 NGOs that participated. Radovanitz commented that the NIF was working behind the scenes through many NGOs to prevent the NGO legislation from passing in its current form. She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic. She also said the NIF was currently re-evaluating its strategy and was hoping to create a movement rather than just a lot of NGOs. She said the NIF had no plans to build a human rights constituency within the right wing of Israeli society, though she believed politics had shifted to the right for the foreseeable future.

¶8. (C) The Ministry of Justice Director for Human Rights and Relations with International Organizations, Hila Tene, told PolOff in a February 10 meeting that she and the MOJ team that sit on a weekly legislative review panel would be strongly advising against the proposed legislation. She did not believe the broad definition of political activity would be included in the draft that would emerge from the Constitution and Law subcommittee. She also mentioned the vast amount of proposed legislation by the current Knesset that has failed to ever become law. The MFA Director for Human Rights and UN Issues, Simona Halperin, also told PolOff on February 11 that the MFA would be advising against the legislation. She asked for comparative legislation from the U.S. regarding NGOs and the registration of foreign agents.

All nice Jews, eh?

UPDATE

For Immediate Release
September 5, 2011
Wikileaks: US Cable quotes NGO Monitor and NGOs;
NIF official:“disappearance of a Jewish state would not be [a] tragedy”

JERUSALEM – A confidential cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv released by Wikileaks, contains controversial comments by a New Israel Fund (NIF) official, relating to Israel’s future as a Jewish state...
“These comments from a high ranking NIF official reiterates the serious questions regarding NIF’s commitment to Jewish self-determination and Israel as a Jewish state,” said Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “NIF is the most powerful non-governmental actor in Israel, and its policies affect millions of Israelis, without providing any accountability or checks and balances...
More broadly, the cable reflects the centrality of the lack of transparency regarding European government funding for Israeli political NGOs reflects, including their role in the “war crimes” accusations used in the discredited Goldstone report...According to the cable, Radovanitz further stated that “NIF had no plans to build a human rights constituency within the right wing of Israeli society, though she believed politics had shifted to the right for the foreseeable future.” On this point, Prof. Steinberg added, “This reinforces extensive evidence that the current leadership of the NIF sees their primary function as a narrow political opposition group, rather promoting democratic and civic values in all sectors of Israeli society.”

NGO Monitor also notes that the cable identifies Radovanitz as a former employee of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), a recipient of nearly $1.3 million in NIF funding in 2009-10. Radovanitz was also the manager of Physicians for Human Rights–Israel (PHRI), and is on the board of Hamoked: Center for the defence of the individual, another NIF organization that promotes “war crimes” and similar allegations.

_______________

UPDATE

The NIF response:

...Ms. Radanovitz is no longer an employee of the New Israel Fund; she left her position almost a year ago. Her comments, as reported by Wikileaks, are her personal views. They do not reflect the policies or positions of the New Israel Fund. We valued Hedva’s contribution to NIF, but it also true that her viewpoints diverged from those of the organization...

Here's her statement.

I wonder how long she was employed.

And she was hired after being Executive Director, Physicians for Human Rights/Israel, a fairly nasty anti-Israel group.

VS adds to me:

How did Hedva Radanovitz's "personal views" affect NIF grants in the period of her employment?

Can we get a list of all their current employees whose private views are similar to those of Hedva Radanovitz?

Who was responsible for hiring Hedva Radanovitz, an individual whose personal perspectives are apparently so contrary to NIF principles? What happened to him/her?

What steps have you taken to ensure that your employees are not personally undermining the NIF's mission in their free time?

^

Double-Whammy B'tselem at the NYTimes

Not only at The Lede bog of Robert Mackay, a long-time fellow-traveller of the forces of the Israel concessionist left, but now, someone else has joined in, besides the regular staright new reporting.

One Elizabeth Harris has blogged the story of the IDF soldier at Beit Ummar who pointed a loaded rifle at an Arab.

The month before, Mackay utilized another clip which has since been proven to be a false portryal of the reality and actually, a complete reversal of the truth in which an Arab youngster is supposedly arrested and his mother is left behind. Israel's Press Council found a complaint against the misrepresentation by Ynet to be justified (in Hebrew).

As Harris notes,

The video shows an Israeli officer — a first lieutenant, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz — yelling at a Palestinian man. The officer shoves the man, raises his gun, and for a moment, brings the muzzle to the man’s face. The officer then lowers the gun, takes a few steps back, and raises it again.

The clip is 1:15 seconds long. It begins with the apparent detention for a security check of an Arab by 3-4 soldiers. They are amongst some 10 Arabs and one is especially vociferous and in-your-face and approaches the soldiers. Perhaps they interpreted that as a potential threat. In any case, a representative for the Israel Defense Forces said the incident would be investigated.

B’Tselem's Sarit Michaeli admitted that

...a resident of Beit Ummar being detained by soldiers on suspicion of throwing stones. When a male relative of the young suspect tried to intervene, Ms. Michaeli said, the officer pointed his gun at the man.

Harris herself notes the Arab

appears to be unarmed

So, was the soldier wrong in his behavior? Was the video clip providing a wrong impression?

Moreover, could coverage like Harris' be the reason the Arab assumed he could so aggressive?

Incidentally, Harris then provides a platform for B'tselem to attack my friend Noah Pollack who, in Commentary's Contentions, criticized the group.

Harris informs:

In an Israeli Web magazine called +972, Ms. Michaeli fired back, saying the article in Commentary “relies on irresponsible and manipulative paraphrasing of statements by B’Tselem and people affiliated with it.” She added, “Certainly we are more Israeli than Americans who command us to march in lock-step with our government, while maintaining a healthy skepticism towards their own leaders.”

which, of course, doesn't respond to Noah's detailed criticism.

Should not Noah be allowed a short response?

So, NYT is in alliance with B'tselem, et al.

^

Do You Support B'Tselem? Sympathize With B'Tselem?

Well, you won't be doing either after reading The B'Tselem Witch Trials by Noah Pollak in Commentary.

You won't regret reading it.

^

B'tselem Depths

Jessica Montell, executive director of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (but not those Israeli Jews who actually live there), has a very shallow conclusion to draw from Goldstone's backtracking:

One question has been answered: Israel, unlike Hamas, did not have a policy to intentionally fire at civilians. But is this cause for rejoicing? Shouldn’t our expectations be a bit higher? Heaven help us if our moral standard is reduced to not committing crimes against humanity. From my country, I demand a lot more.

"Human rights"?

Actually, I thought I had higher expectations from Jessica and B'tselem.

I don't anymore.

^

At Least There's Agreement That Rocks Were Thrown

Reported:

...police received an initial report shortly before midday of shots having been fired at two Palestinians who allegedly threw rocks at Israeli vehicles. Elhaded said an Israeli motorist targeted by the rocks had fired the shots.  The driver reported the incident and was set to be questioned over the incident.

The two Palestinians were lightly injured by the gunfire and evacuated to a Palestinian hospital.

The Palestinian Authority’s Government Media Center in the office of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, however, issued a very different take...they had been walking in a funeral procession when they were shot. Sarit Michaeli of the rights organization B’Tselem said that according to witnesses interviewed by the group, stones had indeed been thrown at Israeli vehicles on that road, but not by the victims of the shooting, who were taking part in a funeral.

Michaeli added, however, that these were preliminary reports, and the full details of the incident were still unknown...

So,

a) Arabs were attempting to kill or maim Jews;
b) B'Tselem's rep is wary of trusting the Arab version;
c) B'Tselem seems to limit 'rights' to Arabs only;
d) the driver who fired the shots, in reporting the incident, obviously felt he had nothing to hide.

^

Guest Input: Dani Dayan on the B'tselem Report

From Dani Dayan, Yesha Council Chairman, on the B'tselem Report which makes an outrageous claim of land control:

Here is the full B'tselem report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/201007_By_Hook_and_by_Crook_Heb.pdf

Look at table 3 in page 9.

The relevant data is the column labeled: סה"כ שטחים מוניציפאליים של ההתנחלויות

They say it is 9.28.

I say 9.19%. The difference is irrelevant.

But the data that they publicized is 42.8% that includes also the column labeled

סה"כ שטחים
מוניציפאליים, כולל מועצות אזוריות

That is a complete non-sense.

They took the contour of the area of the regional councils and counted everything comprised within.

But Avi Roeh [Binyamin Regional Council Head - YM] does not have any jurisdiction on the Arab villages, the roads, the open areas comprised within that contour line.

It is a totally misleading data.

Dani

Why Would B'tselem Rehash Old Claims?

Why?

To sabotage the upcoming Obama-Netanyahu meeting, embarrass the Israel Prime Minister and to undermine Israel's foreign policy.

That's why.

Simple.

The report? Oh, it's here, it seems, and it claims that

One-fifth of settlements' built-up area is private Palestinian land

Well, that's what Richard Silverstein's site claims -

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/07/04/btselem-one-fifth-of-west-bank-settlement-buildings-on-privately-owned-palestinian-land/

But he must have jumped the gun because he seems to have removed the uploaded post.

Here's from Google Alerts:

B'Tselem: One-Fifth of West Bank Settlement Buildings on Privately ...
By Richard Silverstein
B'Tselem will be releasing a study on Tuesday (perhaps timing it to coincide with Bibi's meeting with Obama the same day) revealing that fully one-fifth of.

Sloppy of him.

Another claim:

Settlements control 42 percent of West Bank land area

More:

...although the built-up area of the settlements is about one percent of the land area of the West Bank, the municipal jurisdiction of the settlements and their regional councils cover more than 42 percent of the West Bank...

Well, we all know that basic information. Yitzhar's zoned land is larger than Ramat Gan.

More,

Some 66 percent of the settlements' built-up areas are "state land". Allocation of this land for settlements was only possible through a manipulative interpretation of all relevant laws in force in the West Bank.

Wow. But all laws can always be said to be manipulative. B'tselem is seeking headlines, not truth or comprehension of processes.

What is "state land" if not the land intended by international law to become the reconstituted Jewish national home?

For example, in the Mandate decision of the League of Nations:-

ART. 6.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

And just what is "international humanitarian law" as in -

The report also analyzes the illegality of the settlement enterprise under international humanitarian law, and the infringement of Palestinians' human rights that result...

B'tselem informs us that:

A draft of the report was sent to the Ministry of Justice for response. The Ministry's official in charge of human rights and ties with international organizations informed B'Tselem that the state will not respond to the report "in light of its political nature."

And that's correct. This is politicized interpretation, colored by pro-Pal. radical progressive extremism.

Ooops. Did that sound like I was a lefty?

Arutz 7 has it, too and quotes Danny Dayan:

Danny Dayan says this is a distortion of the truth. “Not one Arab has been deprived of his land to build Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria,” he told Arutz-7’s Shimon Cohen. “Unlike in previous settlement enterprises, such as the kibbutzim of several decades ago, when there was no other choice… Since 1974, not one piece of privately-owned Arab land has been confiscated – and those that were, were totally compensated for, either in money or land. And the properties that were thus confiscated and compensated add up to much less than 21% - so that no matter how you slice it, this number is a brazen lie of the kind one can expect B’tselem to disseminate.”

Dayan had even stronger criticism of B’tselem for their purposeful publication of the report precisely as Netanyahu is to meet with Obama. “This is an act of an organization that is hostile to the State of Israel – and B’tselem has become exactly that. It is playing a central role in the campaign to divest Israel of its defensive means… Timing the report in this manner is an act that borders on treason.”

- - -

What's Wrong Here?

Here, in Ha-Ha-Haaretz:

B'Tselem: IDF may have executed unarmed Palestinian militants

An investigation into an overnight Israel Defense Forces operation in the West Bank city of Nablus early Saturday suggests that Israeli soldiers may have executed two of the three Palestinian militants who were killed, the left wing rights group B'Tselem said Saturday.

Let's see,

a. May have?

b. Unarmed?

c. Militants?

d. Investigation?

e. Only two out of three?

f. Rights group?

g. All of the above?


Nope.

For some strange reason, Ha-Ha-Haaretz terms B'Tselem "left-wing".

B'tselem Ignores Its Own Murdered Field Worker

From the B'tselem site:

26 Jan. '09: Extra-judicial execution of alleged collaborators by Hamas

According to several media reports, since the start of the Israeli attack in Gaza, Hamas has executed an unknown number of residents of Gaza that it considered to be collaborators with Israel. According to these reports, some of those murdered were of people in Hamas detention centers, and others fled the central Gaza prison, which was bombed by Israel. The allegations of collaboration pertained to the passing of information to Israel, and to past collaboration with Israel.

In light of the current circumstances in the Gaza Strip, B’Tselem cannot investigate fully these reports, or provide the exact number of the people killed in these events, or their identity. However, international humanitarian law expressly prohibits any state or organization from performing extra-judicial executions.These acts are grave breaches of international law, and all those involved in carrying them out bear individual criminal responsibility for these actions.

No name. None.

The Jerusalem Post has it:

A Palestinian human rights activist and journalist who used to work for the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem has been executed by Hamas on charges of "collaboration" with Israel, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip said over the weekend.
Hamas gunmen in the Gaza Strip.

They identified the man as Haidar Ghanem, 46, of Rafah.

They pointed out that Ghanem, who was a field researcher for B'Tselem, had been sentenced to death by a Palestinian Authority court in 2002 after being found guilty of passing on information to Israel that later resulted in the elimination of Fatah gunmen.

Ghanem, according to the Palestinians, was among dozens of suspected "collaborators" who were executed by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.

Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor

Response to Nicolas Kristofs op-ed "The Two Israels"

Letter to the Editor
New York Times

In his oped, Nicolas Kristof (June 22, “The Two Israels”) illustrates the danger of the “halo effect” that surrounds many powerful non-governmental organizations, which use distorted human rights claims to promote ideological agendas. While otherwise very professional journalists question and independently verify the claims of governments, corporations, and others, the statements of groups that assert moral objectives tend to be taken at face value. In this article, Kristof extols B’tselem and Machsom Watch (the women who "volunteer at checkpoints to help Palestinians through"). As documented by NGO Monitor, both are political organizations based in Israel that have appropriated human rights rhetoric for partisan goals, mix fact with fiction, and grossly distort history in order to promote their private agendas.

For example, Kristof repeats the simplistic statements of these NGOs regarding Hebron – a city of immense religious and historical importance to the Jewish people – without mentioning the impact of the 1929 massacre and expulsion of the entire Jewish community. A limited return to this historic city was only possible after 1967. Since this context is inconvenient for promoting B’tselem’s political objectives, which would mean again removing the Jewish population from Hebron, these political activists focus instead on one-sided human rights allegations in which Palestinians are always victims, and Israel is always the oppressor.

Seduced by the “halo effect”, Kristof uses B’tselem’s very narrow window to strip the wider context and sell his own interpretation of the conflict and strip it of the wider context. Following B’tselem’s lead, Kristof also ignores the human rights violations of Jewish Israelis in Hebron, including the murder of a 10 month old baby – Shalhevet Pas by a Palestinian sniper. And claims regarding the impact of Israel’s separation barrier and checkpoints completely erases the fact that hundreds or perhaps thousands of Israeli lives that have been spared by preventing the entry of suicide bombers. This is also a primary human rights issue, which the activists in B’tselem and Machsom Watch find inconvenient, and which no human rights group has documented using video cameras.

Expropriating human rights rhetoric for partisan claims, erasing the context and complexity of conflict situations, and applying human rights exclusively to one side of a conflict is morally unacceptable. Such biased approaches from NGOs have severely undermined the ethical foundations and credibility of human rights, which are by definition universal and must be applied equally.

Gerald Steinberg
Executive Director
NGO Monitor
Jerusalem, Israel

Idiots

Here's what I thought when I read this:-

The Palestinian-rights group B'tselem on Wednesday called for a criminal probe into the deaths of the Abu Meatak family, saying the IDF appears to have violated international law by firing the missile close to the family's home, despite the high risk of harming civilians.

B'tselem said firing a missile close to a home would violate the rule of proportionality set by international law.

"In these circumstances, it's highly likely civilians would be at home and be hit by the blast," said Sarit Michaeli, a spokeswoman for B'tselem. "Even if you attack a legitimate military target, the anticipated damage has to be in proportion to the anticipated gain."

a) B'tselem are idiots and evil.

b) Who is a real war criminal in using civilian cover for terror?

Protected civilians must NOT be used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.

Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities #Chapter II -- Civilians and civilian population
Article 51 -- Protection of the civilian population

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

and

The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War mentions involuntary human shields twice. Whereas article 28 states that “the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations”, article 34 is more explicit, saying that “the taking of hostages is prohibited.” This idea was reconfirmed in 1977 by article 51 of Protocol I Additional to the Convention, which declares that “the Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”

c) Maybe all of Israel is too close to an area of hostilities?

d) And what are they actively doing against Hamas in the international arena?

There Goes a Pound of My Flesh

B'Tselem's file at the Israeli Ministry of Justice’s regulatory body for nonprofit organizations (Rasham Ha-Amutot) declares the following donations in 2006 (this is the most current information available, the list is not exhaustive):


€100,000 from the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy (EIDHR),
Two grants worth €54,000 and €164,090 from the European Commission
CHF 99,983 (or 349,728 NIS) from the Swiss department of Foreign Affairs,
$45,961 (or 193,167 NIS) from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry,
$5,000 (or 23,000 NIS) from The New Israel Fund.
Two separate donations from the Ford Foundation:
$100,000 (or 449,500 NIS), to be spent over 2006 and 2007
$24,774 (or 115,000 NIS) for use in 2006.

Source