The world of Miftah - Double standards for Jews and everyone else

Elder of Ziyon..
28 May '13..

Miftah, the Western-funded NGO that refuses to condemn the medieval Jewish blood libel in Arabic, has another article filled with lies - this one about Jerusalem:

Looking at the state of Jerusalem’s eastern sector today, it is understandable why Israel would not want UNESCO or anyone else walking around the Old City, especially the Palestinian-populated parts of it. Because anyone who does, will see the devastation that Israel and its settlers have wreaked on one of the oldest and most beautiful cities in the world.

Devastation? United Jerusalem today is more beautiful than at any time since 70 CE. So what is the devastation?

Excavation works are being conducted in and around the Aqsa Mosque to make way for more Jewish construction at the place where Waqf authorities say Ottoman and Abbasid artifacts have long been tucked away.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the subject knows that the Israel Antiquities Authority bends over backwards to save ancient artifacts - belonging to any religion. The Waqf, on the other hand, lies whenever it is convenient to do so, and has purposefully destroyed thousands of priceless ancient Jewish objects.

Condemning Jews acting responsibly to save antiquities while condoning Muslims destroying them is a bit of a double standard. There might be a term for that.

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

Caroline Glick - Why is the US government funding radical Israeli NGOs' information operations?

Caroline Glick..
carolineglick.com..
15 February '13..

Earlier this month NGO Monitor released its report on foreign government funding of radical political Israeli NGOs which work to undermine Israel's international standing and subvert Israeli society. Along with the usual European suspects who give millions of shekels (or Euros or pounds) to Israeli groups like this, it works out that the US government is also funding extremely radical organizations, courtesy of American taxpayers. Notably, the three groups that reported receiving funding from the US are all in the business of waging political warfare campaigns directed at the Israeli public.

According to the report, in accordance with the NGO Transparency Law which requires NGOs to report on donations received from foreign governments, three Israeli NGOs received funding from the US.

Keshev, a radical leftist "media watchdog" group run by some of Israel's most outspoken, and radical journalists and writers received NIS 492,452 in direct aid from the US government. To understand how subversive Keshev is, it suffices to note that they criticized the Israeli media for rushing to judgment about Fatah's unity deal with Hamas. That is, the group the US supports believes we should not criticize Fatah for joining forces with a genocidal jihadist movement committed to the obliteration of Israel that is in cahoots with the Iranians.

Through Catholic Relief Services,the US also gave NIS 220,304 to the anti-Israel pressure group B'Tselem. The money was used to fund B'Tselem's video project. B'tselem's video project involves the distribution of video cameras to Palestinians to film snuff films that portray Israelis as aggressive bullies who seek to harm the Palestinians for no reason.

Numerous examples have already been reported of how those film clips have falsely portrayed events.

Finally, the US government donated NIS 15,474 through the Foundation for Middle East Peace to the far left internet outlet Social TV. To a certain degree, Social TV can be -- and has been -- portrayed as the anti-Zionist answer to Latma, the Hebrew-language media criticism site that I run. But Latma is wholly funded by private contributors and foundations.

It would have never occurred to me to ask a foreign government to fund the project. It never would have occurred to me to ask a foreign government to get into the media watchdog game in Israel. But then, from reading the report it is clear that the aim of the US government is not, in fact to help Israeli media outlets do a better job reporting on events. Rather, the report indicates that the US government has decided to use radical Israeli NGOs to wage political warfare in Israel. The aim of this campaign is to convince the public that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace with our neighbors.

Welcome to the cult of personality - Social activism in Israel

Seth J. Frantzman..
Opinion Columnist/JPost..
16 October '12..



Last week Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer at IDC, posted a link to an article about Ronny Edry and Michal Tamir, founders of the “Israel loves Iran” campaign.

Javedanfar related a story about sitting at a Mexican restaurant when he saw a face he recognized. “It was Ronny Edry himself, having lunch with his family... [he] was being followed by a camera crew.”

The way the author goes weak-kneed, one might assume Edry was a celebrity. That camera crews were following the celebrity might make us think that Edry has accomplished some great deed, like finding a cure for cancer. But all Edry did was make a poster. So why the hero worship? The story of Edry and Tamir’s “Iranians, we love you: We will never bomb your county” campaign is emblematic of a larger pattern in Israeli society.

Ostensibly the campaign was launched at the height of fears about a war with Iran in March. The two Israelis, who are married, decided that using their graphic design skills they would try to encourage a more positive image of the Israeli-Iranian relationship. But very quickly it was clear the campaign was dominated primarily by Edry and Tamir. Their faces were in fact the faces used on some of their initial material.

And it’s far from the only such case. In fact, almost every Israeli human rights or social cause boils down to a cult of personality similar to the “We love Iran” campaign.

Analysis of UK Government Funding for Israeli and Palestinian Political Advocacy NGOs: 2008-2011

NGO Monitor
26 April '11

The British government funds a large number of Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). As the following analysis demonstrates, although some reflect universal human rights and humanitarian efforts, others pursue an intensely partisan and divisive agenda. These NGOs employ the rhetoric of "apartheid," "ethnic cleansing," and "war crimes" in their reports, and are involved in BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaigns. As the evidence shows, such activities politicize human rights and contribute to the conflict, as opposed to promoting peace.

NGO Monitor's analysis of NGO funding policies in the region from 2008 through 2011, which includes information provided through correspondence with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), demonstrates that:

The UK government no longer supports the following Israeli NGOs, which had received various grants between 2005 and 2010: Yesh Din, Ir Amim, Gisha, Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), HaMoked, Bimkom, and Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI).


The British government funds Palestinian NGOs Defence for Children International - Palestine Section (DCI-PS) and Holy Land Trust, which are involved in the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel.


In correspondence with NGO Monitor, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) stated: "The UK Government does not support the BDS movement," and "we have been very clear that the boycotts movement is not productive... it could be deeply corrosive."


Breaking the Silence, Terrestrial Jerusalem, B'Tselem, and Peace Now are receiving funding via the British Embassy in Tel Aviv in 2011.


UK officials acknowledge that funding for the above groups is part of an attempt to change "Israeli civil and military judicial practice and decisions" and government policy. In addition to questions regarding external interference with the Israeli democratic process, many of the activities of these NGOs are directed primarily outside of Israel and reflect anti-Israel campaigns.


The UK government operates transparently regarding NGO funding, providing regular updates on Embassy and Consulate websites. However, the decision making and evaluation processes lack transparency, leaving key policy questions unanswered.

Click here for the full analysis

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Good riddance to the Ford Foundation

Seth J. Frantzman
Terra Incognita/JPost
12 April '11

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=216346

Until Israeli NGOs can find a way to see past ethnicity, they don’t deserve funding – not from their society nor from abroad.

I was initially saddened to see the Forward’s headline “Ford Foundation, Big Funder of Israeli NGOs, Pulling out.” The article revealed that the Ford Foundation had given $40 million to Israeli NGOs since 2003. Nathan Gutman noted that the charity “will not resume its funding for programs in Israel once its current grant round ends in two years. The reason, the organization explains, has to do with changing priorities, not with politics.”

The Ford Foundation’s huge funding had been made under the umbrella of the Ford Israel Fund since 2003, in partnership with the New Israel Fund. “The initiative focused its grant making in three fields – advancing civil and human rights, helping Arab citizens in Israel gain equality, and promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

A short list of the organizations funded through the initiative includes Adalah, B’Tselem, HaMoked, Citizens Accord between Jews and Arabs in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights- Israel, Sikkuy and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

So the Ford grants, like those given by the EU, were directed primarily at the Arab minority and Palestinians. Scanning the recipients, it is hard to find any that deal with non-sectarian issues, such as poverty, women’s rights, sexual health or providing training to the disadvantaged. This is because the Ford Foundation had been in partnership with the New Israel Fund, which disproportionatly funds NGOs that deal either with Israeli-Arabs or the rights of Palestinians.

As was the case when examining EU funding in Israel, it is important to look at the big picture. The Ford Foundation was founded in 1936 by Edsel Ford, son of Henry Ford. Its charter declares that it was founded “to receive and administer funds for scientific, educational and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare.”

The foundation seeks to promote global peace, freedom and education. Since 1974 it has been completely independent of Ford Motors, with assets of around $11 billion. The Foundation is generally considered somewhat left of center, supporting abortion rights, for instance. The charity has been a long-time supporter of Palestinian NGOs, to the tune of millions of dollars in 2000- 2001 alone. But in the wake of criticism, it seems to have scaled back some of that funding.

The Ford Foundation’s website has a database that appears transparent. A search for all the funds given to the Middle East in 2009-2011 reveals $16 million. The organization’s Middle East headquarters is in Cairo, and Egypt receives the bulk of the grants. The Middle East office has goals such as: “to empower the marginalized,” “promote transparent and effective government,” “reduce HIV/AIDS discrimination,”, “advance higher education,” “support diverse arts spaces,” “sexual and reproductive health education,” “promoting cultural preservation,” “building the capacity of key organizations,” and “advancing research.”

A quick scan of the grants distributed by the Cairo office reveals that none of them went to the New Israel Fund. It turns out that a great deal of funding for the Middle East and North Africa is hidden by the Ford Foundation under what is termed “Global” funding and funding labeled as being directed at the United States. Under those receiving “Global” grants in 2010 were such organizations as the Arab Institute for Human Rights ($278,000), the Center of Arab Women for Training and Research ($250,000), The Arab Foundation for Freedoms and Equality ($140,000), the American University of Cairo ($280,000), The Coptic Evangelical Association ($920,000) and the Egyptian Association for Community Participation ($100,000).

Among the 1,064 grants given to organizations in the US in 2009-2010 is a grant to the New Israel Fund. It is an oddly nontransparent way to label money directed toward Israel.

According to a 2007 article in Yediot Aharonot, the Ford Foundation has spent $70 million in Israel since 1948. It seems, then, that the New Israel Fund partnership will have accounted for about half of the overall money granted to Israel since its independence. That money has been directed toward sectarian causes, which is to say Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians.

The problem is that when the Ford Foundation sets out to fund projects in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, it does so without considering sectarian issues. It doesn’t fund only Armenian projects in Lebanon, or only Christian and Circassian minorities in Jordan. The projects it appears to fund are open to all and benefit all. Sexual and reproductive health programs benefit all women equally. Advancing higher education benefits all. “Supporting diverse art spaces” – whatever that means – seems to potentially benefit everyone.

THE NEW Israel Fund bills itself as an organization that supports civil society; its slogan is ‘say yes to a better Israel,’ and the Ford Foundation seems to have thought that the NIF would channel its money to a wide range of causes. But the reality is that many of the organizations the NIF funds exist only to support narrow political and ethnic causes.

The New Israel Fund hijacked the Ford Foundation, and directed the significant funding it provided toward a certain agenda.

The Ford Foundation money could have helped poor Israelis – Jews and Arabs – achieve their higher education dreams.

It could have helped women – Jews and Arabs – to learn about reproductive health. It could have promoted greater transparency in government, and brought art to poor neighborhoods from Kiryat Malahi to Wadi Joz. It could have, but it didn’t, because the New Israel Fund threw up a wall between the Ford Foundation and Israeli society, and directed its funds elsewhere. To be sure, a few hundred thousand dollars found their way to non-sectarian places like the Hebrew University ($300,000) and the media activist group Agenda ($250,000), but millions were targeted elsewhere.

So we should say, sadly, good riddance to the Ford Foundation. Israel’s NGOs and progressive US Jews who have played a role in the New Israel Fund, thwart efforts to help Israelis. They see only Palestinians and Jews, rather than people, and want to look romantically at some tiny coexistence groups that have little impact. Until Israeli NGOs can find a way to see past ethnicity, they don’t deserve funding – not from their society nor from abroad.

The writer has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Fighting the “Soft War” on Israel

Giullio Meotti
frontpagemag.com
27 January '11

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/27/fighting-the-soft-war-on-israel/

More and more, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become one of the most powerful — and controversial — pressure blocs in the global arena. In recent weeks, Israel’s parliament established a commission of inquiry into NGO funding from Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Algeria. Well-heeled NGO advocates have criticized the investigation for being heavy-handed, but in fact, an accurate understanding of the finances behind NGOs is desperately needed. Not only are these groups bankrolled by Israel’s enemies, but the funds are used for the express purpose of conducting “soft” warfare against the country from within. This nexus must be exposed.

According to Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident who was pivotal in the creation of the famous NGO Human Rights Watch, many of these organizations are currently being used by dictatorships to fight democracies. NGOs have become crucial in biased reports against Israel submitted at the United Nations, like the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War. Their “humanitarian” lamentations are often generously funded by the European Union, which supports many anti-Israel enterprises.

NGOs fueled the legal battle to shut down Guantanamo Bay, which the former president of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, has shamefully called “the Gulag of our time.” The power of NGOs was discussed also in recently released WikiLeaks cables, with the revelation that Muslim “charities” are still playing a decisive role in financing terrorism.

Last year, a Turkish NGO called Insane Yardim Vakfi (IHH) sparked an unprecedented crisis in relations between Israel and Turkey. These organizations are also playing a role in the ongoing legal indictments against Israeli politicians and the country’s military. Israel has canceled “strategic dialogue” with London to protest a British law that allows judges to arrest members of the Israeli government for alleged “war crimes” if they set foot in the UK. Many Israelis cancelled UK trips out of fear of being arrested.

Ronen Shoval: Probing Israel's leftist NGOs is democracy at its best

The majority of the public has become convinced that human rights groups are extreme and seek to force their radical values on others.

Ronen Shoval - Haaretz
Published 02:00 10.01.11 Latest update 02:00 10.01.11
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/probing-israel-s-leftist-ngos-is-democracy-at-its-best-1.336142


In the past year, a vigorous public debate has been waged in Israel between dozens of heavily funded organizations that call themselves human rights groups and several other organizations claiming that those groups have cynically exploited the human rights discourse as a propaganda tool for defaming the Israel Defense Forces and isolating Israel.

On the one side are organizations that charge Israel with carrying out war crimes, including those involved in hounding senior Israeli officials abroad or in calling for the boycott and divestment of Israel. These organizations believe that Israel is an anti-democratic, militaristic and racist regime.

On the other side are organizations that believe that Israel has a democratic, moral and tolerant society that is fighting physically and ideologically for its very right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people. These organizations see Israel as a magnificent democracy that is dealing with gigantic threats while maintaining democratic norms at the highest possible level. They organizations believe that Israel has fallen victim to a mendacious campaign aimed at accusing it of crimes it did not perpetrate, and thus at justifying a policy that would negate its right and ability to protect itself.

The public debate that has taken place in Israel over the past year has underscored the fact that Israel is a democratic state of the highest order. There were reports, ads, hundreds of articles and endless interviews, along with demonstrations and various steps aimed at explaining and convincing. At times this debate was to the point and at other times it was demagogic. It was visceral, scathing and sometimes fiery. Just like in a democratic country.

A revolution took place in Israel this year, after many years in which only those attacking Israel (a small percentage of the population ) were represented in the public discourse, including in the media and among the intelligentsia. This was the first year in which Israeli democracy succeeded in creating two camps and two voices - two ideologies, as is customary in a democracy, and in Judaism. Not a single viewpoint, as is customary in communist countries. Two interpretations of the term "liberalism," not just one, as is customary at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.

During the past year, the vast majority of the public became convinced that the organizations that call themselves human rights groups actually belong to the extreme left and seek to force their radical values on others through foreign funding. The vast majority of the public does not believe the lies that are being spread against the IDF fighters, and knows that Israel makes every effort to avoid harming innocent people. Most of the public knows that Israel is a democratic and open state. They do not buy the lie that all of us are backward, violent and racist, just because a negligible minority decided it has a monopoly over enlightenment, democracy and human rights.

The Israeli public is wise and capable of understanding a complex reality, as well as media manipulations, even though the "human rights groups" - which revolve around arrogance, hypocrisy and disrespect for human beings, for the people and their elected representatives - think otherwise. The people are critical and have finely honed senses, and can therefore easily identify who seeks to defame them and who is furthering their rights.

Since Israel is a democracy, and since transparency is a condition for democracy, we are entitled to know who is funding and fueling the campaign of hatred against us. Which special interests are meddling in Israeli democracy and bestowing great power - sometimes disproportionate, sometimes undemocratic - in the hands of a radical minority? In another few months, we shall get the answers to which we are entitled.

The writer is the chairman of the movement Im Tirtzu.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israel’s Enemies Within

A worrying minority is undermining the Jewish state’s self-confidence.

Mona Charen
nationalreview.com
07 January '11

The late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan coined a pithy test for whether a country is free or not. Take a look at the newspapers, he suggested: “If all the news is good, you’re not in a free country. If all the news is bad, you are.” A corollary to Moynihan’s test could apply today: If a nation is beset by concern about human-rights violations and injustice within its borders, it is a free country. If it concerns itself only with the supposed human-rights violations of other nations, it is not.

In this sense, Israel is just like the United States and other open societies. A free press and an independent judiciary, along with civic organizations, political activists, and professors, are watchful for any perceived deviation from the nation’s high standards.

But it is different for Israel. It alone among the world’s 195 nations is the target of a delegitimization campaign. This intellectual and moral assault is distinct from criticism of Israeli actions (which is always welcome in a free society). The delegitimization effort asserts not that Israel behaves badly, or that it should refrain from this or that activity, but that it has no right to exist at all and/or that the Jewish people do not exist. Long the position of the Arab states and the Palestinians, the denial of Israel’s essential legitimacy has spread over the course of the last decade to include a number of governments and non-governmental organizations, and, perhaps most significantly, a non-trivial number of writers and intellectuals.

(Read full "Israel’s Enemies Within")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Trading Truth for Money

Emmanuel Navon
For the Sake of Zion
06 January '11

Yesterday (Jan. 5), the Knesset decided to establish a parliamentary committee to examine international sources of funding for Israeli organizations that “aid the de-legitimization of Israel through harming IDF soldiers.” While the decision enjoyed a wide support (41 in favor, 16 against), it turned into a heated spat between the Right and the Left.

The Knesset’s decision was adopted following revelations by organizations such as NGO Monitor and Im Tirtzu that many Israeli NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) testified against Israel in the Goldstone Report; that they are involved in the issuing of arrest warrants against Israeli politicians and IDF officers in Europe; and that some of those NGOs’ funding comes from foreign governments.

Those who oppose yesterday’s decision generally make two points: a. the organizations that stand accused deal with human rights and therefore only deserve praise and protection; b. their sources of funding are already public knowledge, so there is no need to double-check them.

Both claims are half-true.

(Read full "Trading Truth for Money")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Zionism Derangement Syndrome

Elliot Jager
jewishideasdaily.com
25 August '10

A smoldering resentment, bordering on political paranoia, is palpable in sectors of Israel's Left these days. Everywhere, it seems, powerful enemies are conspiring to undermine the centers of cultural influence that leftists have long regarded as their own property, and as beyond criticism. Their response bears a resemblance to the left-wing American affliction that the columnist Charles Krauthammer memorably labeled "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

One recent challenge to Left hegemony is a proposed law now winding its way through the Knesset's legislative process. The bill, prompted in part by an independent report on certain Israeli pressure groups, including Peace Now and B'Tselem, would require political-advocacy organizations to reveal how much money they receive from foreign powers. On the face of it, this seems unexceptionable enough: in the U.S., the Foreign Agents Registration Act has long stipulated that persons paid to act in a political capacity by a foreign principal must declare their relationship; the proposed Israeli law, by contrast, would merely require the reporting of donations from foreign states and state-funded foundations.

Another challenge comes from a new grass-roots student effort called Im Tirtzu. The organization, which insists its political platform is centrist, has declared its intention of urging Diaspora Jewish donors to reconsider their support of Israeli universities whose humanities and social-science departments are bastions of anti-Zionist teachings and whose tenured faculty work to propel the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign against the Jewish state. The group will also urge students to avoid academic departments that silence or intimidate those voicing Zionist convictions.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Bogus 'pro peace' organizations undermine Israel

Isi Leibler
Candidly Speaking From Jerusalem
27 May '10

Of late, the western media has provided inordinate prominence to Jewish fringe organizations like J Street and its European clone, JCall, which define themselves as "liberal" and "pro-peace", but concentrate on castigating the Israeli government and undermining mainstream Diaspora pro-Israel Jewish organizations.

These bodies are primarily controlled by anti-Israeli activists, but also include many well-meaning but confused liberal fellow travelers. They also attract uninformed Jews and members of the anti-Zionist chic influenced by constant negative media depictions of Israel.

Their core message is that the Jewish establishment is alienating the bulk of the Jewish street, by blindly supporting the policies of an extremist right wing Israeli government and indulging in "McCarthyite" tactics to excommunicate anyone who dares to criticize Israeli policies.

These unrepresentative bodies receive widespread favorable exposure by a media which relishes quoting Jews beating up on Israel. Whenever Jewish writers or academics condemn Israel or castigate their own community, they are portrayed as heroic voices of conscience resisting a harsh and bigoted Jewish leadership. One only has to compare the enormous media coverage provided to the European J Call petition criticizing Israel with a counter petition by Italian MP Fiamma Nirenstein which contained many more signatories and was effectively ignored.

This was also exemplified in the US by the extraordinary media coverage extended to former New Republic editor Peter Beinart who wrote a lengthy essay titled "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" in the New York Review of Books, a periodical renowned for its longstanding hostility to successive Israeli governments. Beinart selectively chose extremist remarks from Israeli hawks, falsely alleged that Prime Minister Netanyahu repudiated the Oslo Accords, quoted the "renowned" Hebrew University professor Ze'ev Sternhell - a bitter post-Zionist - alleging that Israel has "fascist characteristics" and accusing the Israeli government and Jewish leadership of alienating the younger generation of liberal Jews.

There is an uncanny parallel between these "pro-peace" groups and the bogus peace councils sponsored by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which also claimed to be the true custodians of peace and succeeded in duping many "fellow travelers" into becoming accessories in promoting the global objectives of the Evil Empire.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Libel

Yaacov Lozowick
Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
15 April '10

(The original title of this post was "Blood Libel", however the author felt the title was overly strong and retracted the title. I have removed "Blood" but left "Libel")

A few days ago Haaretz splashed a new story across the top of its front page, knowing perfectly well that it would spread like wildfire all over the world: Israel is gearing up to deport tens of thousands of Palestinians. And of course, it did. The fools and the knaves all hugged the story to their hearts and ran with it as far and as fast as they could.

Nothing about this is surprising: not the willingness of Haaretz to harm the country by spreading lies, not the eagerness of our enemies to wield them.

If there's anything at all about the story that's remotely surprising, it's the ease with which it can be disproved. Any reasonable observer of Israel knew immediately that the story couldn't be true as told; the fact that its originators were one of our radical Left NGOs (Hamoked) reinforced this gut feeling. Elder of Ziyon, an anonymous blogger with no public position, sent an e-mail to the appropriate official, who explained that the reality is more or less the opposite of that reported by Haaretz. Here's the full response, though I recommend following the link to read Elder's important comments about the case:

1. The new military order was signed 6 months ago.

2. There are no changes to the repatriation system or the authority/means to repatriate illegal residents in Judea and Samaria. The only difference is that now the process includes a judiciary review.

3. The decision to establish a judiciary committee to review the administrative process of repatriation was taken in response to the Israeli High Court of Justice (בג"ץ) decision that there should be judicial oversight.

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Voiceless Victims

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
14 February '10

In Friday’s post, I noted that due to their warped focus, Israeli human-rights organizations are increasingly leaving real victims voiceless. But the damage is incomparably greater when major international organizations do the same. To appreciate just how badly groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have betrayed those who need them most, everyone should read Nicholas Kristof’s devastating recent articles on Congo in the New York Times (see, for instance, here and here).

The civil war in Congo, Kristof writes, has claimed almost seven million lives over the last dozen years. It has also created a whole new vocabulary to describe the other horrific abuses it has generated – such as “autocannibalism,” which is when militiamen cut flesh from living victims and force the victims to eat it, or “re-rape,” which applies to women and girls who are raped anew every time militiamen visit their town.

Yet the world rarely hears about Congo — because groups such as Amnesty and HRW have left the victims largely voiceless, preferring instead to focus on far less serious abuses in developed countries, where gathering information is easier.


Video: FreeMiddleEast

Neither Amnesty nor HRW has issued a single press release or report on Congo so far this year, according to their web sites. Yet HRW found time to issue two statements criticizing Israel and 12 criticizing the U.S.; Amnesty issued 11 on Israel and 15 on the U.S. To its credit, HRW did cover Congo fairly extensively in 2009. But Amnesty’s imbalance was egregious: For all of 2009, its web site lists exactly one statement on Congo — even as the group found time and energy to issue 62 statements critical of Israel.

(Read full post)

Im Tirzu: NIF NGOs made up bulk of Goldstone testimonies

Abe Selig
JPost
01 February '10

A report set to be released in the coming days by the centrist-Zionist student group Im Tirtzu, has accused the New Israel Fund, a group that works toward religious pluralism and democratic change, of direct responsibility for the United Nations’ Goldstone Report on the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip just over a year ago.

According to the report, 92 percent of the negative citations used in the Goldstone Report to criticize the IDF’s conduct in Gaza last year came from 16 Israeli NGOs, which Im Tirtzu has alleged received some $7.8 million in financial support from the NIF in 2008-2009 alone.

Among the NGOs listed in the report are Adalah, Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Center for the Defense of the Individual, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Yesh Din, Doctors for Human Rights, Gisha, Bimkom, Rabbis for Human Rights, Itach, Other Voice, New Profile, Machsom Watch and Who Profits from the Occupation.

The report states that the above NGOs contributed “hundreds” of testimonies and other materials to the Goldstone Report, and that while Palestinian and UN sources inside Gaza were also consulted during Judge Richard Goldstone’s investigation in the Gaza Strip last summer, the bulk of the damage was done using the material provided by the Israeli NGOs.

“The Goldstone Report looks the way it does because of these 16 groups and the quotes they provided,” a spokesman from Im Tirtzu told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday. “In that vein, our goal is to remove the NIF’s mask and show the public what they really are – which is a fifth column, plain and simple.”

The report, which was leaked to the Hebrew daily Ma’ariv last week, was featured in a front-page expose in that newspaper’s weekend edition and has already begun to make political waves.

MK Yisrael Hasson (Kadima), a former high-ranking Shin Bet official and member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, told the Post on Sunday that the details of Im Tirtzu’s report were set to be discussed during a special Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee hearing next week, in which Hasson said he plans to investigate the claims thoroughly.

(Read full article)
.

It's the Repression, Stupid

Yaacov Lozowick
Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
28 December 09

The Observer section of the Guardian website offers an innovative way to spin the weekend's story of violence in the West Bank. It starts just as you'd expect it to: Israel is shooting Palestinians, jeopardizing the cease fire and generally being its usual vicious self. Yes, there's a quick mention that the Israeli action in Nablus might be connected to the shooting of a settler, but the journalist races by that point in the fourth paragraph and never returns.

Then the fun begins. 14 of 20 paragraphs of the item report how Israel is clamping own on its own human rights organizations.

The shootings have come as Israeli human rights campaigners issued a stinging critique of how Israelis who opposed the war in Gaza have been treated by the state, claiming that they have been silenced, accused and vilified. In its annual report, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel states: "Instead of taking an honest look at its reflection, Israeli society and its institutions chose to smash the mirror."

I sometimes try to keep my language reasonable and civil. This line of argumentation, however, is so far beyond idiocy, that it can't be fudged. First, note that there's no news in the item: all the allegations are months old, and the threats of the politicians never led to any action, as any reasonable observer would have known in advance. Second, all these organizations (there are many dozens of them) have websites where they purvey their bile in English, even though the Israelis they're trying to educate prefer Hebrew; none of the websites is or has ever been censored in any way, nor could it be. Every one of these organizations can be found in the phone book (or its online version), and you can call them up, make an appointment and go visit them. They don't hide their addresses, as the Samizsdat publishers of the communist world once did. They routinely publish their opinions in the media....

(Read full post)
.

Who's afraid of NGO Monitor?

Naftali Balanson
Right of Reply/JPost
02 December 09

The primary role of civil society is to "give voice" to ordinary citizens and ensure that government officials hear from those most affected by their decisions. The ability of citizens to inform public policy is the hallmark of any democracy, including Israel. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be at the vanguard of democracy and pluralism, promoting the values of free and open debate.

Therefore, it was striking that some of the most prominent Israeli NGOs boycotted the December 1st Knesset conference on "Foreign Government Funding for NGO Political Activity in Israel." The agenda included the political, diplomatic and legal issues raised by the phenomenon of NGOs which receive tens of millions of shekels from foreign governments, often without the knowledge of the Israeli government and public. Legislative proposals were also considered.

Minister Michael Eitan and MK Zeev Elkin invited officials from Israeli NGOs to speak at the conference, in order to include representation from groups that would be affected by future legislation. B'Tselem, the Association for Civil Right in Israel (ACRI), and Adalah receive millions in European government support. These NGOs have a vested interest in making their voices heard, and they were given an open platform.

But they refused to attend. Instead, NGOs and their allies initiated a campaign to delegitimize the conference and silence its organizers. They pressed MKs like Daniel Ben-Simon to cancel participation in the event, and wrote angry op-eds in The Jerusalem Post (David Newman) and Ha'aretz (Didi Remez). Reflecting the pervasive secrecy and lack of full disclosure, Remez did not reveal that he works for Ben-Or Communications. In this role, he has a direct and personal interest in many of the organizations he was defending: the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Bimkom, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), and Yesh Din.

These over-the-top reactions and silencing of critics reflect the "democracy deficit" and secretive nature of human rights NGOs in general. This trend is more pronounced among Israeli groups that rely heavily on foreign government funding.

(Read full article)
.

Trojan Horse: The Impact of European Government Funding for Israeli NGOs

NGO Monitor
24 November 09

The report Trojan Horse: The Impact of European Government Funding for Israeli NGOs is a detailed analysis of major funding provided by foreign governments, primarily in Europe, for highly politicized Israeli NGOs. The report was published in conjunction with the Institute for Zionist Strategies, and is the basis for a conference to be held in the Knesset on December 1, 2009.

Click here to read the Hebrew report

Executive Summary in English [click here for PDF]

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) wield very significant political and legal power in Israel, particularly through their use of the language and frameworks of human rights and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. These NGOs are also a major and often hidden channel for external influence in Israeli foreign and security policies.

Much of the funding for political lobbies that claim to be based in Israeli “civil society” comes from foreign sources – particularly European governments, including the European Commission – as well as foundations such as the New Israel Fund, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institute. By using the generous resources made available by these external donors, the Israel-based NGO network is able to promote particular political ideologies, and to oppose the policies of the democratically elected government on many issues.

The NGOs discussed in this analysis are highly active and visible participants in both the international and national debates on issues such as the status and future of Jerusalem, the disputed territories in the West Bank, and the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). These NGOs issue high-profile statements and reports, generate media publicity, organize demonstrations, speak to student groups and army units, and use the courts to advance their political agendas.

In the international arena, the same NGOs submit statements to United Nations frameworks such as the Human Rights Council, run major media campaigns, and spearhead lawsuits in various countries. Using the tens of millions of shekels, euros, and dollars they receive each year, the externally funded NGO network is far more powerful than other Israeli organizations that do not enjoy similar support from foreign governments.

(Read full article)