Via NGO Monitor:

NGOs discover Iran’s human rights violations

International NGOs have issued a number of statements on the Iranian government’s suppression of demonstrations following the June 12, 2009 presidential election. In order to restore their claims to leadership and universality in human rights, these NGOs will need to continue to focus sufficient resources on Iran.

Highlights of the report:

• Before the elections, Iranian violations were not a high priority for HRW or FIDH.
• Despite its large and active Middle East division, HRW devotes few resources to Iran.
• The majority of Amnesty’s attention was through narrowly-focused and low-impact “Urgent Actions,” not in-depth reports.
• NGOs call for “restraint,” “investigations,” and new elections.

Click here to read this report.

Mr. Shmuel Sokol, Center for Near East Policy Research, was recently commissioned by Daniel Pipes and his Middle East Forum to write a research report on the anti-Zionist and antisemitic Israeli-Arab NGO I’lam, which is largely funded by American Jewish donors and engages in spreading falsified claims of massacre and anti-Israel propaganda through its media outreach efforts.

Mr. Sokol’s articles on the matter can be found online at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101992 (“American Jews fund anti-Israel organizations: Groups work with Palestinian Authority, promote Iran nukes”) and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132047 (“New Israel Fund Grantee’s Video Accuses IDF of Executions”)

The New Israel Fund, which provides funding for core expenses and salaries at I’lam is regularly apprised of I’lam’s activities and continues to misrepresent I’lam as a progressive organization to their American donors, some of which have contacted the Center for Near East Policy Research in shock and disgust to confirm Mr. Sokol’s research.

Islamic states win another resolution on ‘defamation of religions’; UN Watch leads 188 NGOs in global protest

The Islamic states scored another win today at the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council for their campaign to ban any criticism of religion, with a resolution calling for curbs on free speech to protect Islamic sensitivities. The 23 votes supporting the restrictions showed an increase of two in comparison to last year.

Eleven countries voted No: Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Italy, while 13 abstained, including Bosnia, Brazil, and Mexico.

With the alarming rise in resolutions throughout the U.N. against individual rights, UN Watch initiated a global appeal, together with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and Freedom House — along with 184 other non-governmental organizations from more than 50 countries around the world — calling on U.N. member states to protect basic liberties. Our campaign was covered by the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, and numerous other media. (See joint NGO statement below, followed by media coverage.)

The resolution on “defamation of religions” is an attempt to gut the concept of human rights of its original meaning, which is to protect individuals from harm or state control, not to shield a set of beliefs from critical inquiry. Our freedoms of speech and religion are facing a combined assault this week by multiple regressive resolutions at the Council, and proposed provisions for next month’s Durban 2 conference that endorse the Islamic proposal to change a core UN treaty on racism.

For further information:

* Hillel Neuer, “The defamation of human rights, ” Radio Free Europe, December 22, 2008
* “Defamation of religions” postings on the UN Watch blog.
Following is the joint NGO statement and list of 188 signatories:

Joint NGO Statement on Danger of U.N. “Defamation of Religions” Campaign

We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations,

Deeply concerned by the pervasive and mounting campaign by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to produce U.N. resolutions, declarations, and world conferences that propagate the concept of “defamation of religions,” a concept having no basis in domestic or international law, and which would alter the very meaning of human rights, which protect individuals from harm, but not beliefs from critical inquiry;

Deeply concerned by the attempt to misuse the U.N. to legitimize blasphemy laws, thereby restricting freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press;

Deeply concerned that “defamation of religions” resolutions may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters, and other independent voices;
Alarmed by the resolution on “defamation of religions” recently tabled at the current 10th session of the UN Human Rights Council;

Alarmed by the draft resolution on freedom of expression circulated by Egypt, whose amendments seek to restrict, not promote, protections for free speech;

Alarmed by the recently-announced initiative of the U.N. “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to amend the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by adding a protocol on “defamation of religions”;

Alarmed by provisions in the latest draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference that, through coded language and veiled references, endorse and encourage these anti-democratic initiatives;

1. Call upon all governments to oppose the “defamation of religions” resolution currently tabled at the UN Human Rights Council, and the objectionable provisions of the freedom of expression resolution;

2. Call upon all governments to resist the efforts of the “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to alter the ICERD;

3. Call upon all governments not to accept or legitimize a Durban Review Conference outcome that directly or indirectly supports the “defamation of religions” campaign at the expense of basic freedoms and individual human rights.

www.unwatch.org

Lawfare:  the newest tactic in singling out Israel for harassment.  If anyone has a conscience one must be adamant about decrying and documenting the hypocrisy of the global community as it holds Israel to different standards while ignoring all the crimes against humanity committed by murderous Islamists within the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Chechnya, and murderous non-Islamist dictators in China, North Korea and Russia.

Via NGO Monitor:

As part of the political war during Israel’s operation in Gaza, 50 NGOs issued more than 500 statements accusing Israel of “wanton killing,” “deliberately targeting civilians,” and “war crimes.”   Many of the documents called for boycotts and international sanctions against Israel and suspension of EU-Israel upgrade talks.  Another aspect included demands for international investigations and “lawfare“.  Although the vast majority of previous lawfare cases have been dismissed, the damage — including the public perception of Israel, the interference with Israel’s diplomatic relations, and the movement restrictions placed on Israelis singled out for this harassment — is considerable.

This NGO Monitor Report presents Frequently Asked Questions regarding NGO lawfare on Gaza.  An Indian newspaper reported on January 25, that the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) is preparing cases in six countries, targeting 87 Israelis for harassment.  In the article, PCHR’s Director claims that “dozens of arrest warrants have already been issued.” Other NGOs calling for lawfare in the wake of the Gaza war include the Alternative Information Center, Adalah, Amnesty International, Ittijah, and the Arab Association for Human Rights.

See NGO Monitor’s monograph, NGO “Lawfare”:  Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict and “Lawfare Against Israel” for more information on this issue.

General FAQs
Gaza War-related FAQs

Q:  What is lawfare?
A:  Lawfare is the exploitation of courts in democratic countries in order to harass Israeli officials with civil lawsuits and criminal investigations using allegations of “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and other alleged violations of international law.  While these cases claim to be about obtaining “justice” for Palestinian victims, they are part of the larger political war.

Q:  When did NGOs start using lawfare as a weapon in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
A:  The tactic of lawfare against Israel was adopted at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference and is an integral part of the Durban Strategy which seeks to demonize and delegitimize Israel.  Although Israel is not the only country that has been subject to lawfare (the US and England have also been subject to suits arising out of the Iraq war), Israel is a primary target.

Q:  Where are lawfare cases initiated?
A:  NGOs exploit universal jurisdiction statutes in Europe and North America to bring these cases.  These statutes allow courts to preside even though the parties and events at issue are entirely foreign.  In some countries, such as Spain, an NGO can apply to a court directly for an arrest warrant or to launch a criminal investigation without the knowledge or approval of the government.

Q:  Who are the leaders of the lawfare movement?
A:  The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, FIDH, the Center for Constitutional Rights (New York), Al Haq, and Adalah.

Q:  Who funds these NGOs?
A:  These organizations are funded by the EU, European governments (Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark), and prominent foundations such as the New Israel Fund, the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Institute.

Q:  What are the positions of NGO superpowers such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?
A:  These NGOs support lawfare against Israel by providing publicity, organizing demonstrations, and issuing reports crafted as legal briefs to coincide with court hearings.

Q:  How many lawfare cases have been filed against Israelis?
A:  Since the adoption of the lawfare strategy, at least ten cases have been filed against Israelis in England, New Zealand, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, and elsewhere.   Nine of the cases have been dismissed at the preliminary stages and one case is still pending in lower court.  Despite the dismissals, the damage — including the public perception of Israel, the interference with Israel’s diplomatic relations, and the movement restrictions placed on Israelis singled out for this harassment — is considerable.

Q:  Why don’t NGOs bring cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice?
A:   Israel is not a party to the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice due to the overtly political nature of these bodies. The UN Security Council, however, can refer a case to the ICC and the UN General Assembly can refer cases for advisory opinions to the ICJ.  In 2004, the GA referred a case to the ICJ for an advisory opinion regarding the “legality” of Israel’s separation barrier.  Advisory Opinions issued by the ICJ are not legally binding.  In the wake of the Gaza War, NGOs such as the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH (France)) are lobbying the UN for either a Security Council referral to the ICC or a General Assembly referral to the ICJ.  According to media reports, Amnesty International is transferring files to the ICC Prosecutor regarding alleged “war crimes” committed by Israel.  These reports make no mention of Amnesty transferring files to the ICC Prosecutor regarding Hamas war crimes aided by Iran and Syria.

Q:  What NGOs have been issuing calls for lawfare since the start of the Gaza War?
A:  PCHR is preparing for lawsuits to be filed abroad and appears to be focusing on filing a case for the killing of  Nizar Rayan, one of the leading architects of Hamas atrocities and who sent his son on a suicide bombing mission in 2001.  An Indian newspaper reported on January 25, that PCHR is preparing cases in six countries, targeting 87 Israelis for harassment.  In the article, PCHR’s Director claims that “dozens of arrest warrants have already been issued.” Other NGOs calling for lawfare in the wake of the Gaza war include the Alternative Information Center (“Barak and all Israeli Leaders—To the Hague“), Adalah (Statement to the UN Human Rights Council), Amnesty International (Oral Statement to the UN HRC, Open Letter to George Mitchell), Ittijah (Adalah is a coalition member — January 7, 2009 Press Release), and the Arab Association for Human Rights (“Israel is not above International Law,” January 7, 2009 Press Release).  One anonymous group established a website, entitled “Wanted,” with pictures of Israeli government and military officials.  The website asks those with “information about the suspect[s] when [they] are outside of the Israeli borders” to contact the Prosecutor of the ICC.

Q:  Are Israeli NGOs such as B’Tselem involved in lawfare?
A:  NIF- and EU- funded Israeli NGOs such as B’Tselem, Gisha, Yesh Din, Mossawa, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel are not at this stage overtly calling for lawfare, but have issued tens of statements leveling charges against Israel such as “collective punishment”, “wanton” use of force, “deliberate” and “unprecedented” harm to civilians, “blatant violation of the laws of warfare,” and “suspicion” of “war crimes.”  B’Tselem even claimed that “it is hard to think of a clear military advantage which could be accomplished” by the killing of Rayan.  These one-sided statements, the distortions of international law, and the emotive “testimonies” collected by these organizations contribute to hostility towards Israel and can underpin any lawfare cases that are filed.

Q:  What is the Israeli government doing to combat lawfare?
A:  The Israeli government is taking the threat of lawfare seriously. The IDF has established a team of legal and military experts to collect evidence which can be used to exonerate its officials.  It has appointed an inter-ministerial team, headed by Justice Minister Prof. Daniel Friedman to defend any Israeli subject to suit.  The army is also protecting the identities of battalion and brigade commanders who participated in the war.  However, the government is largely reactive and has not addressed the core role of NGOs and their funders.

Q:  Is there merit to the NGO claims against Israel?
A:  The NGOs calling for lawfare base their allegations on faulty legal premises, factual distortions, and unreliable “eyewitness” testimony.  These NGOs do not possess the military or other factual information necessary to level their charges.  Many NGOs claim Israel breached the laws of war by attacking the Hamas government and its police force on the basis that these are “civilian” entities.   There is no basis, however, for labeling the Hamas government or its police force as civilian, and there is clear evidence that members of these institutions have been involved in attacks.

These NGOs also distort international law by claiming Israel committed “war crimes” by attacking military targets located within civilian infrastructure such as homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals.  Under the Geneva Conventions, the presence of civilians does not render military targets immune, and any civilian deaths resulting from Hamas’ use of human shields in these areas are the responsibility of the terror organization and not Israel.

Many NGOs claim to have greater military knowledge than the IDF, questioning the military advantage of various targets.   In fact, former British army colonel Richard Kemp noted on the BBC that there has been “no time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and the deaths of innocent people than the [Israel Defense forces did in Gaza.]“   (For more faulty legal claims against Israel, see NGO Monitor’s report: “The NGO Front in the Gaza War:  Exploitation of International Law.”)

Q:  Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claim that their researchers in Gaza have found “prima facie” evidence of “war crimes”. Is this evidence reliable?
A:  No.  NGOs researchers are not trained professionals in evidence or forensic collection.  These NGOs rarely name their researchers, specify the collection methodology, or identify witnesses.  There is no way of ensuring that this “evidence” is preserved according to forensic standards or that NGO researchers have maintained a recognizable chain of custody.  Due to the absence of any standards or publication of their methods, NGO “evidence” is impossible to corroborate or verify.  The New York-based NGO Human Rights First, has criticized NGO involvement as actually being harmful to a criminal investigation because, “[m]ost NGOs do not employ trained criminal investigators” and this “untrained collection of physical or forensic evidence” can “limit its value” before a court.

Q:  Have these same NGOs called for lawfare against Hamas, Iran or Syria?
A:  No.  In contrast to the many appeals for lawfare against Israel, very few, if any, of these NGOs call for the filing of cases against Hamas.   Hamas war crimes, such as deliberately attacking Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets and mortars; the widespread use of human shields within Gaza; and the killing and maiming of Gazan civilians from premature denotation of Hamas weaponry and “work accidents” are completely ignored.   These NGOs also remain silent regarding the violation of Gilad Shalit’s rights under the Geneva Conventions as a prisoner of war.  Similarly, Iran and Syria — Hamas’ sponsors and conspirators in its legal violations — are not called to account.

For Further Background Reading:

“Lawfare,” David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2007

“Israel, Gaza, and International Law,” Alan Dershowitz, The Jerusalem Post, January 27, 2009

“Amnesty International’s anti-Israel stance undermines human rights and international law,” Prof. Avi Bell, Jurist Hotline Blog, January 5, 2009

“International Law and the fighting in Gaza,” Justice Reid Weiner and Avi Bell, MESI, December 29, 2008
To read the full report, click here.

For the full report click here.

From the beginning of Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza on December 27, 2008 to January 8, 2009, 35 NGOs claiming to promote human rights and humanitarian agendas have issued more than 132 statements on the fighting, and the number increases continuously.

These statements exhibit severe bias and double standards, focus overwhelmingly on condemning Israel, and ignore or pay little attention to Israeli human rights and casualties.

Under the façade of morality and universality, they exploit international legal terminology and erase Hamas violations of international humanitarian law, such as the extensive use of human shields. These reports are a central part of the “soft power” war being waged against Israel, in parallel to the “hard power” rocket and terror attacks, and reflect an ideological bias which also gives excessive attention to this conflict. In contrast many international NGOs have remained silent on extensive human rights abuses occurring around the world during this period. For example, on December 27 (the start of the operation), 189 villagers were massacred by Ugandan rebels in the Congo. Yet, none of the major NGOs reported on this incident.

NGO Monitor is tracking these statements to provide continual updates on the NGO public relations effort on Gaza. In order to highlight the activities of particular NGOs, NGO Monitor´s series entitled, “The NGO Front,” will focus daily on different organizations, beginning with an analysis of Oxfam’s role.

Oxfam : “Disproportionate” Attacks on Israel

• Oxfam is funded by the British government ; Oxfam American received $9 million from the Ford Foundation in 2007.
• Following Hamas’ takeover of Gaza and increased rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in 2007, Oxfam played an integral role in the NGO campaign against Israel’s Gaza policy, accusing Israel of an “illegal siege”, “collective punishment” and continued “occupation”. This campaign contributed to the conflict and gave Hamas leaders the expectation of international support for its terror activities.
• Oxfam has issued eight statements since December 27, and has created a special page regarding the conflict on its website.
• These statements include false international legal claims, such as the accusation that Israel is guilty of “disproportionate force” or “illegal collective punishment”.
• Presents an immoral equivalence between Hamas’ deliberate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and Israel’s response in self defense – a right guaranteed under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
• Repeats the standard Palestinian accusation that Israel has created a humanitarian crisis, despite the detailed evidence from the World Food Bank and other sources to the contrary.
• Oxfam uses these claims to promote a clear anti-Israel political agenda, including calls for increased diplomatic pressure and demands that the EU and other international bodies suspend agreements with Israel. No similar demands are presented with respect to Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, or Iran.

For further information:

“EU and NIF-funded NGOs Lead Condemnations in Gaza Conflict ,” NGO Monitor, (Updated daily)

“Did Israel Use “Disproportionate Force” in Gaza?” Dore Gold, Jerusalem Viewpoints, Vol. 8, No. 16, 28 December 2008

“International Law and the fighting in Gaza ,” Justice Reid Weiner and Avi Bell, MESI, December 29, 2008

For NGO Monitor’s full report, including quotations from Oxfam’s publications, click here

From NGO Monitor. Highlights of their report:

• Christmas cards depicting the security barrier and conflating Jesus with the Palestinians are being marketed by War on Want and Amos Trust.
• Alternative Christmas carol event, with lyrics: “Twelve assassinations, Eleven homes demolished, Ten wells obstructed, Nine sniper towers…and an uprooted olive tree.”
• An “Alternative Gift” of donations to the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Coalition, which supports the Durban strategy through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS).

Summary

In advance of Christmas 2008, several British NGOs have returned to previous theological offensives against Israel by combining emphasis on Bethlehem, stories of Palestinian suffering, and false allegations of Israeli cruelty. Through Christmas cards, carols, and charity fundraising, War on Want, Amos Trust, Pax Christi and others condemn Israel’s security barrier and erase the Palestinian terror campaign that necessitates it. As in previous years when NGOs used Underground station advertisements and greeting cards, these campaigns manipulate Christmas and Christian religious symbols to advance a political agenda, and in some cases, may be promoting antisemitic canards.

To read the full report, click here.

NGO Monitor will be co-sponsoring a conference December 9-10, 2008, “60 Years Since the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Genocide Convention.”

See the full conference schedule for more details. The public is invited to attend.

Non-governmental organizations exploit the international justice system to further their campaign against Israel and officials who operate on the state’s behalf, claims a new study: “Lawfare,” released Tuesday by NGO Monitor.

The study examines ten lawsuits against Israeli officials filed at international courts between 2001 and 2008 – nine of which were dismissed.

The 10th case, filed at the International Court of Law in Spain by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) against National Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, is still pending.

Read the Full “Lawfare” Report