Is Germany a true friend of Israel?

Next month, Chancellor Merkel faces the easiest human rights test in Germany’s post-war history. The Germans can continue to embarrass themselves by supporting a UN-sponsored anti-Semitic lynch mob in the guise of a rally against racism, or they can walk out.

See also: Berlin still has not pulled out of ‘anti-Israel’ Durban III, Anne Bayefsky

German parliament continues to court Israel’s most despicable foes in Tehran, by Benjamin Weinthal

Next month, New York will host an event marking the 10th anniversary of another dark hour, the notorious UN-sponsored Durban world conference on racism, which became a platform for some of the world’s worst human rights abusers to call for Israel’s destruction.

On September 22, the UN will welcome representatives from 186 of the 193 member countries for the third meeting of the Durban process. At the second Durban conference in Geneva in 2009, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and proclaimed the Jewish state “illegitimate” and “criminal.”
He called for the obliteration of Israel and Zionism, declaring "Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights at eradicating this barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism."  Iran's despot used his UN stage to voice his oft-repeated denial of the Holocaust, saying that Israel was "created on the pretext of Jewish suffering from World War II."  Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he is expected to speak again next month in New York.

While the United States, Canada, Italy, Australia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and naturally Israel have declined to attend an event whose participants call for the elimination of a UN member, Germany will send its diplomats to the third Durban conference, as its parliament continues to court Israel’s most despicable foes in Tehran.

Berlin still has not pulled out of ‘anti-Israel’ Durban III

“Germany’s behavior toward the UN’s Durban III conference raises serious questions about its commitment to combat modern anti-Semitism. As an event which will commemorate the hatefest held in Durban in 2001, and its Durban Declaration, which singles out only one country on Earth – the Jewish state – it is shocking that Germany has not refused unequivocally to withdraw in solidarity with Israel, the United States, Canada, Italy and other European nations.” Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Source: JPost by Benjamin Weinthal

Germany’s Foreign Ministry is moving forward with preparations for the September Durban III anti-racism conference in New York City, a UN-sponsored event that presumably will single out Israel for attacks, as have previous “Durban” events.

In addition, speaking last week in the UN Security Council, a German Foreign Ministry undersecretary blasted Israel for its construction of settlements in the West Bank.

When asked if Germany planned to participate in Durban III, a German Foreign Ministry spokeswoman told The Jerusalem Post on Friday that the federal government “will decide on its participation in the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the international racism conference in light of the ongoing preparatory negotiations.”  The spokeswoman added that the German government was “against racism and all other forms of discrimination.  In the context of the international racism conference, [Germany] works to ensure that no individual countries are separately pilloried.”

Last April, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and German Chancellor Angela Merkel sought to repair relations that had been strained by Berlin’s criticism of the way Israel has been addressing the Middle East peace process. There were also reports of heated exchanges between the two leaders.

Europeans exporting hatred of Israel to South Africa

"The tribunal coordinator, former Belgian senator Pierre Galand, said the tribunal would compare Israel to apartheid South Africa, putting questions to the Jewish state about crimes against humanity."

Ben Levitas, another vice chairman of the South African Zionist Federation, told JTA that the Jewish community has expressed great concern about the tribunal.

“This is not a court that reflects public opinion," Levitas said. "They have been very selective in their choice of witnesses.”

The anti-Israel kangaroo court is the idea of a radical anti-Zionist Belgian Pierre Galand who says that Israel is a "rogue state" (for more on his anti-Israel militancy click HERE).   Among the "tribunal" patrons there is another Belgian, François Houtart, a priest, former professor at the Catholic University of Louvain and Israel hater, who was accused of having molested a young boy from his family: "In 2009, Houtart signed the Appeal for the removal of Hamas from the EU terror list and he became instrumental in the Russell Tribunal against the state of Israel. In 2010, a cousin of Houtart (female) filed an anonymous complaint to the Adriaenssens commission that her brother was sexually abused by Houtart, while he stayed at their house. The priest admits having inappropriately touched his cousin twice around 1970." The cousin decided to come forward when she heard that his supporter were working to nominate him for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.  See also: Francois Houtart, Belgian Activist Priest, Admits Sexual Abuse.  This fact doesn't seem to embarrass the "tribunal" crowd.

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (JTA) -- Ten years after the notorious U.N. anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, that devolved into an Israel-bashing frenzy, anti-Zionist forces are mobilizing again to hold another anti-Israel conference in South Africa. This time, Israel will be on trial.

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine -- a standing organization that held two tribunals against Israel last year in Barcelona and London -- has been called for Nov . 5-6 in Cape Town “to probe whether the treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories meets the criteria of the United Nations convention against the crime of apartheid.”

The South African Zionist Federation has called the event, which is to involve prominent South Africans and already is making national headlines here, “an irrelevant talk shop.”

“Despite its name, the Russell Tribunal is not an impartial, accountable judicial body,” a vice chairman of the South African Zionist Federation, Ben Swartz, told JTA. “Rather it is a loose association of lobbyists pushing a narrow, one-sided political agenda, in this case the delegitimization of the State of Israel.”

He called it “a pointless political smear campaign by a self-appointed group of anti-Israel activists.”

But because of the attention it is receiving in South Africa, the tribunal is likely to be a damaging public relations exercise against Israel. The event has won several key endorsements in the country, including from South Africa’s leading federation of trade unions, the ruling African National Congress party, the South African Communist Party, and Zackie Achmat, the AIDS activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

While the tribunal said it invited Israel, Dov Segev-Steinberg, the Israeli ambassador to South Africa, denied the claim.

Another European Union and United Nations 'serial assault' against Israel

The Centre lamented that the message "included no mention of terrorism and, in fact, endorsed a designated terrorist organisation on the UN's own watchlist", also stressing that "the meeting showed its true colors by studiously ignoring our proposal for a balanced resolution, calling 'for peace between the Arab State of Palestine alongside the Jewish State of Israel.'"

All signs point to this Israel-bashing exercise having been organised by a group of influencial and determined Belgian French-speaking Israel-bashers: Pierre Galand (Socialist, Université Libre de Bruxelles, founder of the Russell Tribunal for Palestine), Véronique De Keyser (Euro MP, Socialist).  Other guests include (well known for their anti-Israel rhetoric) Neve Gordon, Avraham Burg, Clare Short.

"Brussels Meeting on the Role of Europe in Advancing Palestinian Statehood is a 'serial assault'"

Source: CENTRE SIMON WIESENTHAL - EUROPE

"General Assembly September vote on Palestinian status should be conditioned on prior dismantling of pernicious UN Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People"

In a letter to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, described his experience as the only Jewish NGO attending the Brussels meeting on "The Role of Europe in Advancing Palestinian Statehood and Achieving Peace Between Israelis and Palestinians."

Samuels noted that "this title was nothing but a political euphemism to campaign for the 27 States of the European Union - and the European Institutions themselves - to endorse the September UN General Assembly vote on a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence", adding "behind that smokescreen, however, the gathering was yet another 'serial assault' against the State of Israel."

The letter listed "campaigns that were discussed, resonant of a 'Third Intifada', - calls for mass demonstrations, beginning in July, by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and by support groups in Europe and North America under the title, 'United for Palestine Independence': -Veiled threats made by delegates e.g. 'this mother of all conflicts can bring violence to all the nations of the world'; 'Palestine will be liberated by a huge anti-apartheid campaign of global civil society'... 'After the vote, we must move from anti-occupation to anti - oppression in a one-state solution'... 'The boycott must be effectively imposed...'"

The Centre suggested, "perhaps we should not be surprised, as this Brussels meeting - following similar initiatives in Latin America and Africa - was organized by the "United Nations Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People", a monster born in the murky shadows of the notorious 1975 Zionism = Racism resolution, which should have been disbanded with that resolution's repeal in 1991.

WikiLeaks: US diplomats find Norwegian anti-Israel FM arrogant and not smart

"How could it not occur to Mr. Støre, that constantly changing tack – without consulting senior partners – that, one day having tea with Hamas, another day, choosing foolishly, and as the only Western representative, to sit and listen to Ahmadinejad’s foul ranting at UNs Durban 2 conference in Geneve in 2009, would have a very high political price?"

Source: Norway, Israel and the Jews (All is fine in my little belly button, sulks Støre)

Our FM Jonas Gahr Støre reacts with incredulity to WickedLeaks that US embassy crew find him not smart, arrogant, in it for himself and with an attitude problem. "Sincerely, I have not heard any of this conveyed to me in Washington", he says – adding that perhaps this might have been the case for US diplomats during the Bush Administration, because they interpreted any sign of independent thinking as something inherently bad.

Too bad for him, then, that US diplomats posted in Oslo in the reign of Obama, continue to sound alarms that all is not well with Norway’s foreign policy. A diplomat wrote in 2009 this about Støre: "Although smart and dynamic, some people wonder if his arrogance might not work too well in negotiations".

Ouch! And with that zinger, the bubble vision he wanted to present to us, of himself as a worldly leader, standing up to the big wigs, burst – and there he was, left with his tiny fig leaf, too small to cover the bald patches where normally you would have expected to see experience, political clout, and maybe even integrity.

Durban III: Anne Bayefsky criticizes Belgium lead role on behalf of the 27 European Union countries

“Is Germany going to stand side-by-side with a Holocaust denier [Ahmadinejad] having genocidal ambitions and claim this is the right forum by which to combat racism and xenophobia?”

"Responding to Bart Ouvry’s [a spokesman for Belgium’s Foreign Ministry] statements, Bayefsky told the Post that some EU states had opted not to participate in Durban II before Ahmadinejad speech.  Those states, Bayefsky said, “did not leave only as a consequence of Ahmadinejad. They pulled out in advance because they recognized that the Durban Declaration and its followup processes harm the cause of combating racism...” [...] Bayefsky said Belgium was pushing the Durban Declaration against Israel and the commemoration event. If Belgium sought to fight racism, “there would be no need to make any mention of the Durban Declaration. They could adopt a statement against racism and refer to the convention on the elimination of all forms racial discrimination,” she said."

US doesn't support UN plan to hold Durban III next year
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL AND JORDANA HORN, TJP

10th anniversary event mooted for Sept. in NY at UN headquarters; ADL, pro-Israel NGOs appalled by idea of celebrating ‘notorious’ 2001 meeting.

A commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Durban I antiracism event is slated to take place in September 2011 at UN headquarters in New York, a source familiar with the plans told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

But Patrick Ventrell, a spokesman for the US Mission to the UN, told the Post on Thursday, “The US does not support the decision to hold the 10th anniversary of the Durban I Conference in New York City in September 2011. We do not believe it would be an appropriate time and venue.”

According to the UN insider, “Negotiators Tuesday spent time arguing about the date. Western states tried to object to September 21 on the basis that there were plans for other events already that day and GA [General Assembly] resolutions are never specific about dates so the issue should be left to future negotiations.”

Next year’s conference is intended to honor the initial Durban I event in South Africa and the follow-up Durban II review conference in Geneva last year. [The US, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland walked away from Durban II because the event was tainted by anti-Semitism and disparate treatment toward Israel.]

Officially known as the World Conference against Racism 2001, Durban I was marred by anti-Semitism and attacks on Israel’s right to exist. Last year’s Durban II showcased Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tirades against Israel as well as his denial of the Holocaust.

According to Natalie Kohli, senior adviser for the UN’s Human Rights Council Review, opposition to the commemoration is expected from the US, Israel, Canada, Australia and others.

Belgium is taking a lead role in negotiating on behalf of the 27 European Union countries regarding Durban III.

The Post learned that South Africa is pushing for a September 21, 2011, date, when most heads of state would be in New York for the annual session of the US General Assembly.

When asked whether Germany planned to participate in the Durban commemoration event, a German Foreign Ministry spokesman told the Post via e-mail on Tuesday, “The discussions on the annual UN anti-racism resolution and the questions raised in this connection regarding a commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Durban conference are currently still taking place in New York. Therefore, the outcome of the discussions cannot be anticipated at this time.”

The spokesman added, “The federal government is working actively within the UN against the misuse of the justified issue of the international fight against racism. This is also its position during the current negotiations.”

After considerable public pressure and media editorials urging Germany to boycott Durban II in 2009, then-foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier pulled the plug on Germany’s involvement in the Geneva Durban II event at the eleventh hour.

Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and an expert on international human rights law, told the Post on Wednesday that the German Foreign Ministry’s statement was “shockingly misleading.”

“Last year, Germany voted against the resolution which decided specifically to hold a ‘Durban III,’ which nevertheless passed handily,” Bayefsky said. “Last year’s resolution also decided the event would be held in September 2011 in New York City, and would be scheduled during the opening days of the General Assembly so that heads of state and of government could be pressured into coming.

“The bottom line is, Germany has followed the decision to hold Durban III and the process of fleshing out the event details closely,” she said. “It is fully aware of precisely what can be anticipated from the current negotiations, since it knows full well that those meetings are fiddling at the edges and have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to have the event, which has already been made. Germany voted with their feet at Durban II, and voted against the resolution on Durban III last year.

“So why is Germany feigning ignorance days before they have to cast a vote on the details of the same meeting to which they objected the year before? Germany knows that Iranian President Ahmadinejad opened Durban II and that he will certainly come to Durban III along with his usual participation at the opening of the General Assembly.

'Ottawa Protocol' draws the line on anti-Semitism, by Norma Greenaway

Most (all ?) European media completely ignored the conference. No wonder, Europeans, while acknowledging that anti-Semitism is a problem in Europe, they never identify any anti-Semites.  In other words, in Europe there is anti-Semitism without anti-Semites.  Quite an achievement. (Drawing: "Happy Hanukka" by Belgian cartoonist Ben Heine)

Full text of the Ottawa Protocol HERE

Source: National Post

Stepped-up efforts within Canada and around the world are needed to combat rising anti-Semitism, says an international declaration designed to stamp out the "most enduring of all hatreds."


The declaration, known as the Ottawa Protocol, was released yesterday after a two-day meeting of parliamentarians and experts from about four dozen countries in Ottawa.

"We are alarmed by the explosion of anti-Semitism and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression, freedom of information and the participation of a civil society," the declaration says.

Irwin Cotler, chairman of the international coalition and a noted human rights activist, told a news conference the protocol breaks new ground. For the first time, it provides detailed definitions of what constitutes anti-Semitism and puts in writing what the group sees as the distinction between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel, the Liberal MP said.

"Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is wrong," the protocol says. "But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium -- let alone denying its right to exist or seeking is destruction -- is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest."

US Congress rejects Goldstone report - Jewish group lobbying European governments

"The fact that the person who is pushing the Goldstone Report onto the General Assembly agenda is the Libyan President of the General Assembly, Ali Abdesselam Treki, speaks volumes about the so-called concern for human rights. Nations like Libya, Iran and Pakistan, who are ranked among the worst offenders of human rights and racism, fight for power and control in the United Nations system not to serve humanity, but to deflect any criticism aimed at their authoritarian leadership." (Moshe Kantor)

Hopefully the lobbying is successful and Europe follows the U.S. in its rejection of the Goldstone report.

1. US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36; full text & voting breakdown
(UN Watch)
______
2. Jewish group lobbies European governments to vote against Goldstone report at UN

PARIS (EJP, article by Maud Swinnen)---The European Jewish Congress (EJC) is actively lobbying European governments to vote against the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war when it is discussed on Wednesday in the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The EJC, which is a body representing Jewish communities across Europe, called on European and other democratic nations to challenge the ‘automatic tyrannical majority’ in the UN.

Thus far no European nation has voted for the Goldstone Commission Report, either during the resolution for its mandate nor when voting for its ensuing resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

"I hope that this trend will continue and that Europe can enlist like-minded nations to ensure that no democratic nation votes for a resolution on the Goldstone Report," EJC President Moshe Kantor said. "We need a coalition of decent democratic nations to combat the automatic tyrannical majority that can impose its views at will by sheer weight of numbers and nothing else," he added.

The EJC said it is "deeply concerned" that the United Nations structure is being hijacked by nations who want to use their voice to suppress true human rights.

"The fact that the person who is pushing the Goldstone Report onto the General Assembly agenda is the Libyan President of the General Assembly, Ali Abdesselam Treki, speaks volumes about the so-called concern for human rights," Kantor said. "Nations like Libya, Iran and Pakistan, who are ranked among the worst offenders of human rights and racism, fight for power and control in the United Nations system not to serve humanity, but to deflect any criticism aimed at their authoritarian leadership."

The EJC feels that many of the United Nations institutions like the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and the Durban process do not serve the purpose they were built for. "Unfortunately, the original and moral mandate of the UN is being hijacked for political agendas at the cost of millions of people who desperately seek its help."

Made in Europe: How government funded NGOs shaped the Goldstone report

Source: NGO Monitor

The Goldstone report is primarily based on statements, publications, and submissions from highly politicized and biased non-governmental organizations (NGOs), many of which are funded by European governments. This broad reliance on secondary sources lacking credibility contrasts with the claims to have conducted a "fact finding mission", and to have subjected claims to critical examination. Beyond adopting the flawed methodologies and false claims, the funding provided for these NGOs links European governments to the Goldstone report, and its contribution to anti-Israel demonization.

The 575-page preliminary report, issued 15 September 2009, contained over 500 direct references to and quotes from NGOs, as well as over 120 references and quotes from United Nations agencies, such as UNOCHA, which generally rely on NGOs as sources. (See below and NGO Monitor’s reports Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO "cut and paste" and House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report for examples and more details.)

The highly biased allegations, and the visibility they receive, are enabled by the same European government funding for NGOs that propels other aspects of the Durban Strategy. This intense effort is based on the exploitation of the rhetoric of international law and human rights to promote demonization of Israel. Similarly, European-funded political NGOs – such as PCHR, Al Mezan, Al Haq, and Adalah – are at the forefront of the "lawfare"campaigns that abuse the universal jurisdiction provisions in the legal codes of a number of Western countries using allegations of "war crimes." As with the attempt to secure an arrest warrant against Ehud Barak in the UK (led by Al Mezan and Al Haq), the goals are negative publicity for and delegitimization of Israel, not "justice."

The following NGOs are used as sources in the Goldstone report. (Funding information is followed by an excerpt from the report and testimonies based on each NGO; these examples are not exhaustive). As seen in many of the excerpts, the NGO allegations were often unconnected to the conflict in Gaza or to the inquiry’s mandate, but were included in NGO submissions and the report’s text as part of a wider effort to condemn Israel and remove the context of terrorism.
Read the full report HERE

Swedish government funds NGOs and anti-Semitism

"Many of these NGOs routinely accuse Israel of "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and "apartheid," and some compare Israeli military and political officials to Nazis. This propaganda warfare is waged through the façade of "research" reports which routinely quote Palestinian "testimonies," taken and repeated without question. The path from this demonization to the blood libels of Aftonbladet is short and direct."

Swedish PM Office: "On 1 July 2009, Sweden took over the Presidency of the EU. This means that for six months, Sweden is leading the EU's work and is responsible for moving important EU issues forward." How ironic that Sweden is at the helm of the EU and acts with unique arrogance : "When NGO Monitor sent the draft report to the Swedish embassy in Tel Aviv and government officials in Stockholm, they refused to comment or to engage in a discussion of the implications of these reprehensible activities."
__________________

Gerald Steinberg is not surprised - neither am we.

Source: article in the JPost

The article in Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet accusing Israeli soldiers of stealing and selling the organs of Palestinians is not a surprise or isolated aberration, but rather the result of a long campaign of anti-Israeli demonization, based on manufactured "evidence" repeated by Palestinian "eyewitnesses".

Applying the strategy adopted at the NGO forum of the 2001 UN Durban conference, the well-financed network of radical non-governmental organizations (NGOs) plays a major role in this demonization, and the Swedish government is a major source of funding. Expressions of modern anti-Semitism and blood libels are the logical results of this activity.

An NGO Monitor research report on Swedish government funding, published on June 29 2009, documented this pattern in detail, and warned of the incitement and anti-Semitic language being used routinely by these organizations. This systematic study examined over 20 major NGOs funded through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Diakonia [which is Christian], the multi-national NGO Development Center (NDC), and the Swedish Mission Council (SMR). Many of these NGOs routinely accuse Israel of "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and "apartheid," and some compare Israeli military and political officials to Nazis. This propaganda warfare is waged through the façade of "research" reports which routinely quote Palestinian "testimonies," taken and repeated without question. The path from this demonization to the blood libels of Aftonbladet is short and direct.

The Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS), run by Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, and receiving funds from the SMR framework, is a prominent example. Barghouthi referred to the Gaza conflict as a "horrendous massacre," and used terms like "ghetto," and "apartheid" on a radio program. PMRS refers to the security barrier as the "apartheid wall," and claimed that Israel employs a "racist ideology" and inflicts "collective punishment" on the Palestinians.
Similar language is found in the publications and statements of the radical Israel-based Alternative Information Center (AIC), which received 300,000 Krona ($42,000) in 2008, Palestinian-based Al Haq (SEK 3 million, as part of Diakonia's IHL program), and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (SEK 900,000). The central role of PHR-I officials in the campaigns accusing Israeli doctors of torture and other forms of heinous immorality, resulted in a decision by the Israel Medical Association to sever relations.

SIDA money also goes to the Women's Affairs Technical Committee (WATC), Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS), and Jerusalem Center for Women (JWC), which demonize Israel with the rhetoric of "apartheid," "ethnic cleansing," and "massacres." This language is repeated in NGO reports and and press statements, which are then reprinted in the media and amplified in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

NGOs supported by Sweden are also among the leaders in the effort to rewrite the history of the conflict in order to portray Israel as an "evil empire" and the world's worst violator of human rights. The Palme Center, run by the Social Democratic Party and leading trade unions, accuses Israel of "provok[ing] the al-Aqsa rising and the 'Second Intifada,'" and "disproportionate violence against civilians, unlawful executions and torture." The fighting in Gaza is also blamed solely on "the provocative Israeli occupation," rather than on the over 8,000 rockets launched by Hamas, or other forms of terror. The history of Arab rejectionism, the wars designed to "wipe Israel off the map", and the decades of massive Palestinian terror, are erased as part of this demonization.

Similarly, a Sabeel project [which is Christian], "The Nakba Memory, Reality and Beyond," used SIDA funding (SEK 540,000) "to commemorate the Nakba of 1948". Sabeel is a leader of the church divestment campaign, and its director, Naim Ateek, employs anti-Semitic themes and imagery in sermons promoting "Palestinian Liberation Theology."

Diakonia's "International Humanitarian Law" project and other Swedish government funding are behind the abuse of legal frameworks to demonize Israel. The "lawfare" movement uses courts in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand to accuse Israelis of war crimes and similar charges. While all of the cases heard to date have been dismissed, the main purpose of this effort is to reinforce the incitement and hatred directed against Israelis through the rhetoric of morality and human rights. Using Swedish funding, lawfare cases are promoted by Al Haq and the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), which, like other such groups, accuses Israelis of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity."

When NGO Monitor sent the draft report to the Swedish embassy in Tel Aviv and government officials in Stockholm, they refused to comment or to engage in a discussion of the implications of these reprehensible activities. Perhaps now, after the Aftonbladet report has highlighted the results of this demonization, they will reconsider and stop this destructive misuse of public funds.

Gerald M. Steinberg heads NGO Monitor and is a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University


A screen capture showing the article in Aftonbladet, with a picture of a dead Palestinian next to a picture of a New Jersey rabbi.

- Behind the Humanitarian Mask: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland
- Swedish Christian NGO Diakonia's anti-Israeli activities
- Swedish Christian NGO Diakonia totally obsessed with Israel
- Conservative Swedish FM Carl Bildt likens Netanyahu to Hamas
- Sweden: when incitement against Jews is allowed
- Swedish government funds fuel Mideast radical NGOs
- Nina Witoszek: Europe has learned little from history
- Al Haq: Europe funding anti-Israeli NGO
- European funding for the narrative war, Gerald Steinberg
- Swedish journalist looks for Swedish extremist Jews
- "Are we using European tax money to promote peace or hatred?", asks ECI director

Amnesty International and HRW "experts" in international law in armed conflicts

"When the Cold War ended, HRW and its London-based twin - Amnesty International - adjusted their agendas to maintain influence and donations. They redefined themselves by claiming expertise they do not have on international law in armed conflicts, and their obsessive condemnations of Israel endeared them to the UN, while keeping HRW in the headlines."

Helsinki Watch (now Human Rights Watch) was established in New York by Robert Bernstein in 1978, primarily to lead the struggle on behalf of prisoners of conscience caught behind the Iron Curtain, including Soviet Jews like Anatoly (now Natan) Sharansky. Bernstein and his colleagues were liberal Democrats, and this was a bold move in this environment. One can easily imagine the attacks in speeches and columns (this was long before the Internet and blogosphere) from unreformed Stalinists on the far left condemning Bernstein's ideological treachery, and labeling Helsinki Watch as a Nixonian anticommunist tool.

But the world has changed, and HRW officials and their die-hard supporters are today's ideological dinosaurs. When the Cold War ended, HRW and its London-based twin - Amnesty International - adjusted their agendas to maintain influence and donations. They redefined themselves by claiming expertise they do not have on international law in armed conflicts, and their obsessive condemnations of Israel endeared them to the UN, while keeping HRW in the headlines. They were embraced by the anti-Zionist post-colonialists who maintain the flame and adrenalin in the Left-Right battles that raged during the Cold War.

These primitive Manichean ideologues have now come to the defense of HRW, after the NGO's leaders have been exposed for using biased and inaccurate "research reports" slamming Israel to solicit funds in Saudi Arabia. Now, as in the Cold War days, the main strategy is to ignore the substance and defame opponents, real or artificial.

Read the whole piece here (op-ed by Gerald Steinberg in JPost

- Amnesty Anti-Israel Obsession Continues to Undermine Moral Principles
- Did HRW and Amnesty protest at giving Ahmadinejad a platform at Durban II?
- "Amnesty ... let the Jews down in Durban", Simon Wiesenthal Center
- Amnesty International: Abolishing Israel's Right to Self Defense
- Amnesty’s obsession with Israel
- European NGO Amnesty International: relentless and disproportionate focus on Israeli "violations"

By attacking Israel, Europe commits suicide, Fiamma Nirenstein

"The representatives of almost all the European countries were actually mirroring the image of what was happening in the European squares, where marches took place, sometimes so incredibly aggressive to choose as slogan "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas", as it has happened in the Netherlands."

"In general, through the Barcelona Process, Europe fuels the conflict by funding all the organizations that call Israel a regime of apartheid and accuse it of war crimes."

Key-note speech at the inaugural event of the European Forum of the Knesset, by Fiamma Nirenstein, Vice President of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Italian Chamber of Deputies
Jerusalem, July 28, 2009

"[...] Europe is today damned by an incredible increase of anti-Semitism episodes, only in England the Community Security Trust, that provides security for the Jewish community have recorded 609 anti-Semitic crimes from January to June, while last years in the same period they were 276. The worst happened during the operation Cast Lead; the bias on Israel, I don’t have to tell you this, are the basic reasons of the growth either of anti-Semitism and political parallel positions against Israel in Europe. Nathan Sharansky has written about the double standards that show the anti-Semitism inside antisraelianism. [...]


In my fresh experience as a member of the Italian parliament and as a deputy president of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I found myself delegated as a member of Strasbourg’s Council of Europe, precisely at the Political Committee and its derivate, the Middle East Committee. The first plenary discussion about the Middle East that I have attended was for me a real shock. It was held at the end of January about Operation Cast Lead. I expected a generic sense of pain toward the civil population involved in the war, accompanied by the understanding of the unbearable situation of the people bombed by Hamas from Gaza; and therefore I imagined that there would have been a thoughtful, problematic discussion about the question of asymmetric war, an army fighting against the terrorist Hamas’ decision of aiming at civilians hiding beyond civilians. Nothing of this kind. I heard a long string of speeches, from the Swedish to the Spanish, from the British to the Russian representatives, who chose to focus not on the clash in itself, but rather on the supposed Israeli war crimes, the Palestinian suffering, and the occupation - as if Gaza were still occupied. I think that only the Canadian observer and myself voiced a different opinion. The rest expressed a deep antipathy toward the Jewish State, even beyond the expected. The representatives of almost all the European countries were actually mirroring the image of what was happening in the European squares, where marches took place, sometimes so incredibly aggressive to choose as slogan "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas", as it has happened in the Netherlands.


In Italy, I will say it with pride, the Italy-Israel parliamentary friendship association, that counts a membership of more the 200 MPs, has been able on the contrary to organize a spectacular, courageous exit toward the square to support the Israeli right to self-defense; thousands of citizens were waiting for us in the square with Israeli flags, and the President of the Parliament, Gianfranco Fini, came out to greet us. The same attitude Italy has had about the Durban 2 conference in Geneva: our Parliament has been the first to vote unanimously for deserting the Conference, and our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Franco Frattini, has guided the little group of European countries (Germany, Holland and Poland) that declared the impossibility of joining the so called antiracism conference. But we cannot ignore that while standing and making a nice exit from the hall where Ahmadinejad was again calling for the extermination of the Jews, the European nations, except the Czech Republic, came back quickly into the Geneva assembly after he finished his speech.

The estrangement of Israel from Western Europe in my view is one of the most outstanding moral and diplomatic markers of our era. On the disintegration of any moral sympathy toward Israel, you can read the disintegration of Europe. The relations between Europe and Israel, do not only constitute a geostrategic axis that is aiming at the survival of a plurimillenary construction of democracy, and also at the physical survival of our civilization. It’s also the indicator, with other markers like low birthrate, aging population, fear and surrender in front of imported values that dismantle the conquers connected to the status of women and of sexual and cultural minorities, of the profound lassitude, the end of civilization weariness that holds in its grip the EU nations. It is also, as Ambassador John Bolton has written, the desire of being liberated forever from conflicts, war, from any problem that will recall the disgust and horror for itself that Europe felt after the Second World War. Since that time onward, Europe considers like a mistake anything connected to its own culture, to its own most intimate structure, its economic, familiar, national, juridical structure, its own civilization. Israel, felt as Europe rib, is a refused member of the family.

Moreover, the fact that religion has become a questionable, sometimes even laughable motivation, makes the State of the Jews become only an annoying incident. The Old Continent has a fantasy of having moved beyond history, and nowadays this attitude is enhanced by the USA new attitude. Sweden, which took over EU presidency on July the first, has been financing, according to “NGO-Monitor”, a precious watchdog organization of NGO activities, a radical NGO in the guise of human rights and humanitarian aids. Its activity is very relevant: Diakonia, Sweden’s largest humanitarian NGO, receives 9,3 million Euros and it distributes this money to some of the most radical centers, like the Alternative Information Center ("working with Peres Center for peace is morally disgusting") and Sabeel ("Israel places Jesus on the cross again, with thousands of crucified Palestinians everyday") [Swedish Christian NGO Diakonia's anti-Israeli activities, Swedish government funds fuel Mideast radical NGOs]. In general, through the Barcelona Process, Europe fuels the conflict by funding all the organizations that call Israel a regime of apartheid and accuse it of war crimes.

The Palestinians Center for Human Rights receives funds not only from the European Commission, but also from single countries like Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland. This and a lot of other foundation program their appearances in public with booklets and researches so as to feed in coordinated times, always through funds that should encourage a peace culture, the culture of hate and war. I see this problem as a field of hard work for parliaments: discuss here where the citizens’ money go.The greatest confusion reigns in allocations of European programs, the names and possible conflicts of interest are hidden, the European Union deleted data in giving information to NGO Monitor. Lately a protest of the Israeli Ambassador to the Netherlands has brought the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs to claim they will stop funding the organization "Breaking the silence", that we know is financed also by England and Spain: just one of the many organization of opposition on the Israeli soil financed by European nations. Here I cannot but underline, with respect with every opinion, how much whenever any intellectual, NGO, famous writer speak against the morality of Israel this become an enormously amplified argument, widely used for extreme and damaging statements all over the net, the media, the political spectrum of power and public opinion: sometimes you really have the impression that no sense of responsibility seems to be taken in consideration in front of the need of expressing one’s opinions and sometimes even simple impressions.

This attitude is perfectly consonant with a sort of categorical European imperative to help the Palestinians, however and whatever: in spite of the international boycott called on when Hamas won the elections, aid to Palestinians grew from about 1 billion in 2005 to more than 1.2 billion in 2006, and billions of dollars are arriving now, after three billion dollars have been raised at the conference of Sharm el Sheik following the war of Gaza. Arab country promised 1.65 billion dollars, the US 900 millions, the EU 436 millions. Now, after a conference on the 12th of July, held between the UNDP, the UN Agency that supervises the distribution, and the UNRWA, it came clearly out that several mechanism permit the funds to arrive in the hands of Hamas itself. Actually, I don’t think that all this generates more than a formal eyebrows rise.

Europe was stopped by watering down the Quartet’s three condition for dealing with Hamas and making the dialogue possible, only by the speech of Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan on June 14th. The same happened with a Belgian proposal that was about to introduce a EU clause in its resolutions saying that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Nowadays, Europe is fascinated by the "settlement complete freezing" way chosen by Obama and feel encouraged on its traditional way, again expressed by Javier Solana last surprising speech that saw in the Israeli "occupation" the source of almost all the troubles of war, much more than Iran and Afghanistan. [...]

The dramatic diffusion of hate against Israel is directly connected with the loss of the most important principles of freedom, a Judeo-Christian conquer. You cannot forget it while working with Europe."

Source: Fiamma Nirenstein blog

Europe Reimports Jew Hatred, by Daniel Schwammenthal

Germany honors Israeli 'Israel hater'

Only in Europe ... and in Germany of all places. The obvious difference between the US and Europe is here for all to see. President Barack Obama, unlike President Horst Köhler, would never award the highest national honour to someone who hates Israel and admires Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Langer, 79, who left Israel in 1990, frequently compares Israel with apartheid in South Africa, and praised the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Durban II UN conference on racism in Geneva in April."

""An aggressive verbal attack on the Jewish state is rewarded for the first time by the German state. Is that really the intention?" (Dr. Dieter Graumann, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany)

"Critics in Austria and Germany assert that Langer's efforts to delegitimize Israel meet the criteria outlined in the European Union's working definition of anti-Semitism."

German President Horst Köhler issued on Thursday the Federal Cross of Merit, first class - the country's most prestigious award - to Israeli attorney Felicia Langer, a vociferous critic of Israel who lives in Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg.

Langer, 79, who left Israel in 1990, frequently compares Israel with apartheid in South Africa, and praised the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Durban II UN conference on racism in Geneva in April.

When asked about the award and the parallels she has drawn between Israel and South African apartheid, she told The Jerusalem Post that the Federal Cross of Merit was a "recognition of my work," and "what Israel is practicing in the occupied territories is apartheid." In an interview with the Junge Welt, a Berlin-based Stalinist daily, she termed Israel "the apartheid of the present" and "the Israeli regime."

Asked about her interview with the Muslim Markt Web site, in which she argued that Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as other leading Israeli politicians and generals, should be convicted of war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Langer told the Post that she considered Israeli officials "war criminals" and stood by her comments. She also said the "official translation" of Ahmadinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map" did not contain a statement advocating the obliteration of Israel.

When asked why Köhler had awarded Langer with Germany's highest distinction, his press spokesman, Stefan Schulze, declined to comment and deferred the matter to the State Ministry in Baden-Württemberg.

In an e-mail to the Post, Uwe Köhn, a spokesman for the state of Baden-Württemberg, wrote, "The honor bestowed on Felicia Langer recognizes her humanitarian service, independent of political, ideological or religious motivation. Most important is her dedication to people in need, regardless of nationality or religion, given her own background as massively affected by the Holocaust. The decision to present the Order of Merit was made on the recommendation of the lord mayor of Tübingen, where Ms. Langer lives, with confirmation from all the usual departments involved in bestowing such honors, including the Foreign Ministry. The honor will be conferred by President Köhler and presented by Undersecretary [Hubert] Wicker."

Read the full piece here
Source: article by Benjamin Weinthal in JPost

In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization

"In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization." (Swiss foreign ministry)

Israel furious over Hamas leader's trip to Switzerland

The Foreign Ministry is furious over news that Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas official based in the Gaza Strip, recently headed a Hamas delegation to Switzerland for talks with Swiss diplomats. A senior Foreign Ministry official said the visit will further destabilize already shaky relations between Jerusalem and Bern, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Switzerland in April for the "Durban 2" United Nations anti-racism conference.

China's news agency broke the story of Zahar's visit nearly two weeks ago.

Officials at the Israeli Embassy in Bern were surprised by the report, since they knew nothing about the June visit. The embassy has requested clarifications from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, but Israeli officials say the responses have not been satisfactory. One Jerusalem officials said it was many days before the Swiss confirmed the Hamas visit to the embassy. Swiss officials told Israel's ambassador in Bern, Ilan Elgar, that the Hamas delegation was invited to Geneva by a nongovernmental research institute. The Foreign Ministry source, however, noted that Swiss diplomats, including the Swiss envoy to the Middle East, met with the delegation during a conference at the institute.

When Elgar requested official clarification regarding the visa issued to the delegation, he was told by the Swiss foreign ministry, "In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization."

Tensions between Jerusalem and Bern began to build about a year and a half ago, when the Swiss foreign minister went to Iran to sign a major gas purchase contract. In May, in the wake of Ahmadinejad's visit to Geneva and the official working meeting with him held by Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz, Israel recalled Elgar to Jerusalem for consultations in protest.

Source: article Barak Ravid by in Haaretz

- Hamas statements on Israel (2006-2007)
- Nonie Darwish and Tawfik Hamid discuss Hamas at European Parliament
- France halts Hamas broadcasts to Europe
- Nizar Rayyan: Hamas "Human Shield" strategist succumbs to his own stratagem, by Ely Karmon
- Proportionality: international law and practice, Hamas' behavior, Israeli conduct
- EU says Gaza reconstruction won't happen under Hamas rule
- Different values: Israeli soldier and Hamas/Hezbollah 'soldier'

Where are all the usual suspects?, Seth J. Frantzman

"The reaction to events in Iran has shown once again the double standards and hypocrisy of those in Europe and the West who jump at the slightest opportunity to protest Israel but remain stoic in the face of events in Iran. ... Yet in January, when Israel was embroiled in a war with Hamas, the anger directed at her in Europe was apoplectic."

Following the contested Iranian election, the green armbands of the opposition and pictures of bloodied and dying Iranian protesters were being held aloft by Iranians from Los Angeles to Paris. Noticeably absent from the international scene were Westerners, particularly students.

The reaction to events in Iran has shown once again the double standards and hypocrisy of those in Europe and the West who jump at the slightest opportunity to protest Israel but remain stoic in the face of events in Iran.

While many have compared the outpouring of anger in Iran to what presaged the 1979 revolution, there is one key difference; this time around, no Western students care. Before the shah fell from power, he often visited the capitals of major European and North American cities. Every time he did, tens of thousands of progressive students and human-rights activists poured out onto the streets calling him a fascist and protesting his visit. In one such protest on June 2, 1967 a German student, Benno Ohnesorg, was even killed. But now there is no such outpouring of emotion. Neither is there any interest from the UN or from Jimmy Carter.

Yet in January, when Israel was embroiled in a war with Hamas, the anger directed at her in Europe was apoplectic [photos of massive pro-Hamas rallies in Brussels, the capital of Europe]. When Israel fought a war against Hizbullah in 2006, Western students even proudly wore the symbol of Hizbullah, a clenched fist holding an AK-47.

So where were the Western students to hold aloft the green armbands of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi? Why will Western students who call themselves progressives wear green for Hamas and Hizbullah - terrorist organizations that murder civilians - and not for Iranian dissidents?

Why have CNN and other major media been so coy when it comes to covering the outrages perpetrated by the regime in Iran? Describing the deaths of protesters, CNN never once, in the coverage I watched, mentioned who had killed them. It simply said they were "shot." But when Iranian dissidents in Washington were interviewed with "death to the dictator" placards, the CNN reporter challenged them, demanding to know if they were calling for "murder."

Murder? The only murder that has taken place so far is the murder of Iranian protesters. For members of my parent's generation, protesting the shah was one of the things you did as a sign you were a good person. It was up there with the civil rights movement. So where is this generation in its opposition to the modern shah of Iran, the ayatollahs and their lackey, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The reason for the disconnect on Iran has strange roots. It was encapsulated in the support that Michel Foucault, a major figure in Western philosophy, gave the Islamic revolution. Foucault, angry at what he found to be a conservative Western attitude toward his homosexuality and feminism, came to support Iranian Islamism in the warped belief that it was the newest "revolutionary" idea. Even when women were smothered in chadors and gays were executed by the ayatollah, he didn't admit that he was wrong.

During the years of the second Bush administration, there was a belief among some on the extreme Left that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Even the indefensible Ahmadinejad was rewarded by those choosing to see his evil through the lens of "realism," "interests" and "historical meddling by the West."

The BBC claimed that should Mousavi win the election, it would be "hard for Israel to ratchet up opposition to Iran" and CNN claimed that "Iran's main enemy, Israel," was watching the protests closely.

Those who oppose Israel therefore justify supporting Iran. This strange logic has led to support for Ahmadinejad's right to "free speech" by inviting him to Columbia University and supporting his "right" to speak at Durban II.

It is a disgrace that those who don keffiyehs as a fashion symbol in universities and fiercely protest Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon will not lift a finger in defense of democracy in Iran. It is a sad testimony to the warped logic of "human rights" that it was a cause célèbre to riot against the shah in the streets of Europe in 1978, but that no one can be called away from their coffee houses and belly dancing classes to raise their hands against the rigged election in Iran.

There are many in the West who are on the wrong side of history, and just as Iranians did not forgive the West for coddling the shah, neither will Iran's next generation forgive us for our silence on this momentous crackdown.

The writer is a PhD student in geography at the Hebrew University and runs the Terra Incognita Journal blog. sfrantzman@hotmail.com
Source: JPost

European funding for the narrative war, Gerald Steinberg

"These European-funded "lawfare" cases are part of the much wider process, conducted through highly political NGOs in Israel that seek to overturn the government's policies - groups like B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Machsom Watch, Bimkom, Ir Amim, Adalah, Mossawa, etc. (The EU claims to fund these NGOs under the guise of limited projects, but the amounts often constitute the bulk of the total operating budget.) "

European efforts to play a major role in Arab-Israeli peace discussions have again been overshadowed, this time by US President Barack Obama's initiative. To raise Europe's visibility, the rate of official visits has increased, and a number of academic conferences on Europe's role are taking place. For example, yesterday the Hebrew University began a three-day conference with the ambitious headline "Strengthening the Forces of Moderation in the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict: The Role of the European Union After the Gaza War."

For diplomats and policy-makers, a "frank and honest exchange of views" on the problematic European track record in academic settings could be very helpful in correcting decades of misjudgments. For example, during the Oslo process, the European Union and its member states were convinced that Yasser Arafat was a "force of moderation," providing him and his corrupt Fatah cronies with suitcases of money, justified as necessary to "grease the wheels" of the peace process and Palestinian state building. Instead, the cash went to foreign bank accounts and terror.

In Europe, there have been very few independent analyses of these and other diplomatic and policy failures. Fearing embarrassment and worse, officials rejected calls for an independent investigation, until the European Parliament forced the European Commission to hold an inquiry (known as the OLAF report). But years later, this report remains top secret, meaning that few if any lessons were apparently learned.

Given this record and the difficulties that Europe has in analyzing itself, serious academic research and conferences can play a very positive role. Unfortunately, many of these discussions of European policy feature speakers and officials who prefer to preach to Israelis rather than investigating their contribution to failure. In parallel, important issues related to policy failures are conspicuously absent from such conferences.

One subjet consistently avoided in the quasi-official research and conference framework is the massive European funding for radical nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) whose activities fuel the conflict instead of "strengthening the forces of moderation," as proclaimed in the title of this conference. Through the "Barcelona program" and aid schemes, the European Commission and member governments provide tens of millions of euros every year to Palestinian, Israeli and other NGOs. The ostensible objectives include promoting democracy, peace, development and human rights, but the results are often counterproductive and fuel the conflict.

These NGOs lead the demonization and delegitimization of Israel, through labels such as "apartheid" and "war crimes," based on the strategy adopted at the 2001 Durban Conference NGO Forum. For example, European NGO funding is the primary engine behind the "lawfare" assaults against Israeli military and civilian officials - a form of soft-war aggression through the courts which accompanies the "hard war" of terrorism. The current case in Spain (chosen for its lenient universal jurisdiction policies) is led by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which is funded by the European Commission, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and other governments. Indeed, PCHR is a central force in the NGO demonization and political warfare against Israel.

These European-funded "lawfare" cases are part of the much wider process, conducted through highly political NGOs in Israel that seek to overturn the government's policies - groups like B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Machsom Watch, Bimkom, Ir Amim, Adalah, Mossawa, etc. (The EU claims to fund these NGOs under the guise of limited projects, but the amounts often constitute the bulk of the total operating budget.)

An examination of the activities of European funded NGOs demonstrates that they do not contribute to "strengthening the forces of moderation." Many are active in promoting anti-Israel boycott campaigns, one-state proposals (meaning the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state) and submitting tendentious claims to UN "investigatory" committees.

A serious discussion of these issues would ask questions like: How does this happen? Who guides these decisions? Why are European government funds for NGOs used to undermine compromise, mutual acceptance and the two-state solution that Europe claims to support? The chaos in EU funding for NGOs and frequent overlaps add to these problems - there is no coordinator or central data source. European transparency regulations are ignored in this area, and no records or protocols are available for NGO allocations under European Commission programs. The names and possible conflicts of interests of the policy-makers are hidden from public scrutiny. Evaluation processes, if any, are secret, making it difficult to explore constructive changes.

When NGO Monitor was unable to obtain the most basic documents and threatened a lawsuit under the EU's own transparency rules, European officials sent a CD containing about 50 documents, most of which had all the relevant information deleted including the names of NGO partner organizations and the evaluation criteria. It was impossible to decipher the few meaningless statements and figures that remained, making constructive evaluation impossible.

These issues should be high on the agendas of discussions and conferences, such as the one taking place at Hebrew University. Unfortunately, these "difficult" subjects and conflicts are largely avoided. Comfortable but misleading headlines, such as "Strengthening the forces of moderation," take precedence over the open examination of European support for "lawfare," the "right of return" and Palestinian rejectionism.

The writer chairs the political science department at Bar-Ilan University and is executive director of NGO Monitor.

Source: JPost

Oxfam Belgium boycott campaign against Israel: the bloody orange poster is reminiscent of the 1370 legend that "holy communion wafers began to bleed after being stabbed with daggers by the Jews of Brabant at the synagogue in Brussels".

A Clouded EU Presidency: Swedish Funding for NGO Rejectionism

Amnesty Anti-Israel Obsession Continues to Undermine Moral Principles

“Amnesty’s publications in the region portray Israel as among the worst human rights violators in the Middle East (second only to Iran). In 2008, Amnesty issued more in-depth reports (9) and “Wire” articles (22) on Israel than any other country.”

Amnesty in 2008: Anti-Israel Obsession Continues to Undermine Moral Principles (NGO Monitor)

* In 2008, Amnesty again focused disproportionately on Israel’s response to aggression from Gaza, and led the NGO campaigns accusing Israel of “collective punishment” and “war crimes.”

* Amnesty’s publications in the region portray Israel as among the worst human rights violators in the Middle East (second only to Iran). In 2008, Amnesty issued more in-depth reports (9) and “Wire” articles (22) on Israel than any other country.

* The data indicate that media attention and ideology, in contrast to universal human rights, drive Amnesty’s agenda. Amnesty’s anti-Israel press releases consistently reflect the organization’s role in influencing international public opinion.

* Amnesty International’s 2009 Annual Report (for events in 2008) further demonstrates the NGO superpower’s highly biased approach. Amnesty grossly distorts the conflict, selectively reports events to erase the context of terrorism, ignores human rights issues not consistent with the political agenda, and repeats un-sourced and anecdotal claims.

* Amnesty promotes an overwhelmingly Palestinian narrative of events, blaming Israel for the end of the Gaza ceasefire and the weapons’ smuggling tunnels under the Egyptian border.

* The section on “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories” employs highly exaggerated language and absurd allegations. Amnesty accuses Israel of “unprecedented use of force” in Gaza, “virtual imprisonment,” and bringing the Palestinians to the “brink of human catastrophe,” and charges that “impunity remained the norm for Israeli soldiers.”

Full report here

- Did HRW and Amnesty protest at giving Ahmadinejad a platform at Durban II?
- "Amnesty ... let the Jews down in Durban", Simon Wiesenthal Center
- Amnesty International: Abolishing Israel's Right to Self Defense
- Amnesty’s obsession with Israel
- European NGO Amnesty International: relentless and disproportionate focus on Israeli "violations"

Did HRW and Amnesty protest at giving Ahmadinejad a platform at Durban II?

"Prior to Ahmadinejad’s speech, international NGOs including HRW, Amnesty, and others did not protest the giving the Iranian leader a platform, despite his Holocaust denial and Iran´s dismal human rights record."

HRW and other NGOs press for US participation, ignoring the real problems of the conference

While Canada, the US, Italy, Holland, Germany, Israel and other Western democracies decided not to participate, having decided that the Durban process could not be salvaged, and the principles should not be compromised for political expediency, Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemned these countries for "undermining" the conference. HRW also claimed (without credibility) that there was "no justification for the decision," and pressed for "engagement." Prior to Ahmadinejad’s speech, international NGOs including HRW, Amnesty, and others did not protest the giving the Iranian leader a platform, despite his Holocaust denial and Iran´s dismal human rights record. HRW, for instance, merely stated that his attendance raised "concern" and blandly calling Ahmadinejad a "divisive figure" for his "controversial" statements on Israel and the Holocaust. This lobbying helped legitimize Ahmadinejad´s absurd presence at a conference against racism.

Even after his hate filled speech, while HRW admitted that it "contradicted the spirit and purpose of the conference" and "Iran´s record of repressing peaceful dissent does great injustice to the struggle against racism and discrimination," the NGO continued to advocate that governments "should respond by staying." This language echoes Commissioner Pillay´s attempt to downplay the impact of such language used under the façade of human rights.

Remarkably, HRW drew a parallel between Ahmadinejad and the Western democracies that did not attend, claiming that their rhetoric was similar, while reiterating that the conference "was earlier undermined by the refusal of the United States to participate, which prompted walkouts by Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Poland." They have thus confused effect (the walkout) with the cause, which is corruption of human rights, aided by the radical NGO network."

Source:
NGO Monitor: UN tries to avoid NGO incitement, but gives Ahmadinejad a platform

- Amnesty International: Abolishing Israel's Right to Self Defense
- Amnesty’s obsession with Israel
- European NGO Amnesty International: relentless and disproportionate focus on Israeli "violations"

Evian 1938 - Geneva 2009, Tomas Sandell

"In 1938 the world was said to be divided up in two categories, those nations which Jews could not enter and those which wanted to expel them. The promised Jewish homeland was not even considered as an option for resettlement since it was believed to create more tension in then British Mandate Palestine. A few years later there would be six million Jews less to accommodate but then, finally, the urgency of creating a Jewish homeland was realized by the world community. But the prize to pay was far too high."

Source: article by Tomas Sandell in TJP

"It is less than three quarter of an hour by car from Geneva to its much smaller sister city Evian-les-Bains on the French side of Lake Geneva. What Evian lacks in size and political importance, it makes up in history and style. This rather sleepy, but healthy, town at the foot of the Alps can boast with one the grandest fin-de-siècle resort hotels of its kind as well as the bottled water which bears its name.

But Evian has a less friendly side which has left its mark in history. Simply Google "Evian" and you come up with a resort, a water and a conference which by some historians has been called "Hitler's green light for genocide." Last year marked the 70th anniversary of the Evian conference on the future of the Jewish refugees, but it was effectively forgotten as France at the time chaired the European Union.

As President Nicolas Sarkozy hosted the conference which was to launch a new era of cooperation around the Mediterranean Sea, the last thing France wanted to be reminded about was Evian 1938. You cannot blame it. Evian goes down as one of the darkest chapters of modern European history when appeasement was the mode of the day and anyone who did not believe in "peace in our time" was simply disregarded as a warmonger.

It is not only the proximity between the two cities which is striking but also the zeitgeist of Evian 1938 and this year's United Nations Conference against Racism. Whereas the original UN conference against racism in Durban in 2001 spiraled out of control with its obsession with the Judenfrage, there are no guarantees that this year will not be a repeat. Western governments have been paying lip service to their commitment to withdraw from anything that would resemble the hate fest in 2001, but words will be cheap when the commitment of the Western nations to stand true to our universal values is tested.

BACK TO EVIAN in 1938. As Hitler had annexed Austria and hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were seeking a safe haven outside of the Nazi-controlled areas, the free world knew that something had to be done. It was the US president Franklin Roosevelt who finally called together the conference with the objective of seeking a solution to the Jewish refugee problem. Thirty-two nations were invited to participate. It soon became clear that the conference was not going to solve anything, as one country after another explained that they all agreed that this was a major humanitarian problem which needed to be solved, but that their respective country could not do anything about it. Others were less diplomatically skilled.

"Our country is simply not big enough to receive any Jewish refugees," said the Canadian representative. When asked how many refugees Canada could receive the answer was, "One is too many." "Australia has no racial problem and we are not desirous of importing one," is a quote which today is on display in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

The list of obscenities does not stop there. A proposal to rescue the refugees by simply letting 10 countries receive 25,000 Jews each was flatly rejected. While these tragic decisions were made, which would ultimately have consequences for millions of Jews, some historians note that pleasure cruises on Lake Geneva were very popular among the delegates, as were tennis and golf in the fresh mountain air.

PERHAPS IT is again the allure of cosmopolitan Geneva and the same mountain climate which makes it so difficult for Western diplomats to simply say no to the UN conference which singles out only one country, Israel, as the racist state of the world and calls its policies "apartheid." What makes this conclusion even more surreal is the fact that the working group, which has been drafting the text, consists of human rights champions such as Libya, Iran and Cuba. The language in the draft resolution has been unacceptable for many, still the decision to withdraw seems difficult to make. At the moment only a few governments beside Israel has decided to boycott the conference, namely the US, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Italy.

One thing is clear. The UN conference in Geneva, which starts today and runs through Friday, will not be a friendly place for any of us who sympathize with the Jewish cause. But things could be worse. In 1938 the world was said to be divided up in two categories, those nations which Jews could not enter and those which wanted to expel them. The promised Jewish homeland was not even considered as an option for resettlement since it was believed to create more tension in then British Mandate Palestine. A few years later there would be six million Jews less to accommodate but then, finally, the urgency of creating a Jewish homeland was realized by the world community. But the prize to pay was far too high.

It is of course the irony of time that a conference dedicating itself to fighting racism, the very disease which lead to Hitler's Holocaust, is currently paving the way for a legitimizing of Jew hatred and Israel bashing around the world.

Let us hope that the world will have learned its lesson this time. When only one people's state is singled out as racist in the whole world, we are awfully near to Evian 1938. On the second day of the UN conference, Tuesday, April 21, which also happens to be Holocaust Remembrance Day, a commemoration event will be held in the small synagogue in the city that hosted the fateful 1938 conference."

The writer is the founding director of the European Coalition for Israel (a Christian initiative promoting European-Israeli Cooperation)

- European Coalition for Israel director calls for broad coalition against anti-Semitism
- European Parliament conference vows to fight anti-Semitism
- "Do not let Israel become the Sudetenland of today", Hanna Orgonikova (ECI)
- European Coalition for Israel warns against surge of anti-Semitism in Europe
- "Are we using European tax money to promote peace or hatred?", asks ECI director
- European Coalition for Israel on working visit to Paris

Holland, Australia boycott 'Durban II'

"Australia has decided not to participate in the Durban Review Conference. The 2001 Declaration singled out Israel and the Middle East. Australia expressed strong concerns about this at the time. Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views." (Stephen Smith, Australian Foreign Minister)

"(...) The US, Italy, Canada and Israel will also boycott the meeting, to protest language in the final document that they say could single out Israel for criticism and restrict free speech. (...)

Hours after the US said it would boycott the UN conference over objectionable language in the meeting's final document that could single out Israel for criticism, Australia and Holland followed suit on Sunday morning, saying they were concerned the conference would be derailed by some countries to issues other than human rights.

"Australia has decided not to participate in the Durban Review Conference," Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a statement. "The 2001 Declaration singled out Israel and the Middle East. Australia expressed strong concerns about this at the time."

"Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views," he continued.

Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen later issued a statement saying his country was boycotting the conference because some nations were using it as a platform to attack the West. Verhagen said these countries were planning to use the summit to put religion above human rights and rein in freedom of speech. He called the proposed closing declaration "unacceptable."

On Saturday night, the State Department said that the Obama administration would "with regret" boycott the conference. It followed weeks of furious internal debate and fierce lobbying by Israel and Jewish groups against US participation.

A final draft of the statements, released late Friday, made changes to sections that had referred to a "hierarchy" among forms of racism, but left intact sections that the US had said would cause it to boycott the meetings.

The conference's planning has been dominated by efforts by Arab nations to prioritize concerns about Islamophobia and "anti-Arabism" - widely interpreted as a thinly veiled code for the treatment of Palestinians.

Some revisions - including the removal of specific critical references to Israel and problematic passages about the defamation of religion - were negotiated, for which State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the administration was "deeply grateful."

But he said the text retains troubling elements that suggest support for restrictions on free speech and an affirmation of the "findings" of the first World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001 that the US cannot endorse. (...)

Israel, Canada and Italy had already said they would not attend the conference under any circumstances because of the tenor of the debate surrounding the planning, and due to the politicized nature of the event itself.

"The text is not the only or even the main thing to consider," Israel's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, said Saturday. "The general mood is a very negative one and everybody is ignoring the main question, which is, 'Does this do good or bad to the fight against racism?'"

Leshno-Yaar said the conference would be "only about politics," adding that there would be "nothing about the fight against racism."

American officials had already said in February that they would not accept a final document that reaffirmed the text endorsed during the first World Conference Against Racism in 2001. The US and Israel walked out of that conference over a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism to racism.

The US had joined Israel in objecting to any further such references, as well as to language declaring that "incitement to racial discrimination" is illegal, something US officials fear would limit free speech.

The changes released on Friday retained language reaffirming the program of action adopted at the original conference.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) welcomed the Obama Administration's decision to boycott the meeting.

"President Obama's decision not to send US representation to the event is the right thing to do and underscores America's unstinting commitment to combating intolerance and racism in all its forms and in all settings," AIPAC said in a statement. (...)"

Source: article by Allison Hoffman and Hilary Leila Krieger in TJP