Human Rights NGOs Completely Ignore Violence and Terror at Gaza Border - by NGO Monitor

...These NGOs likewise fail to question why children were present at a violent protest in the first place, disregarding visible instances of Hamas recruitment and use of children

NGO Monitor..
01 April '18..

Following the “March of Return” protests that took place along Gaza’s border with Israel on March 30, 2018, numerous human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) took to social media to condemn Israel – neglecting the context and role that terrorist organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) played in organizing the event.

The same international, Israeli, and Palestinian NGOs completely disregard human rights violations committed by these Palestinian terror groups, including ignoring Palestinian violence used along the border; Israel’s security threat of protecting its civilians that live in very close proximity to the Gaza border; and the use of civilians (including women and children) as human shields. These NGOs likewise fail to question why children were present at a violent protest in the first place, disregarding visible instances of Hamas recruitment and use of children (as noted in the numerous images of Palestinian minors hurling rocks and approaching the border). It further does not appear that human rights NGOs reported on Hamas’ “recruitment and use” of a 7-year-old girl who was sent across the border.

According to the IDF, of the 16 Palestinians killed in Friday’s clashes, 10 were known members of Hamas. NGO claims condemning Israel for killing innocent civilians also overlook this fact.

The following showcases a selection of extreme bias in reporting on Friday’s events by human rights NGOs:

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

A window into the systematic failures of EU’s foreign policy decision making

...while it may seem naively optimistic, perhaps the EGC ruling on Hamas and the EU terror list can become a trigger for the EU to undertake a major revision of its foreign policy making process. Although couched in terms of a “technical failure”, such failures are systematic and widespread. To begin repairing the system, the EEAS and other EU bodies will have to replace reliance on fringe ideological NGOs with real experts, familiar with the complexities that go beyond myths and slogans.

Gerald M. Steinberg..
The Times of Israel..
18 December '14..

The ruling of the European General Court to strike down the inclusion of Hamas and in the European Union’s list of terror organizations, was, we are told, due to a minor technical problem, and readily corrected. According to the court, the original decision in 2003 was not based on a careful study of the evidence, such as bus bombings and other acts of mass murder conducted by the Palestinian group. Rather, the EU Court ruled that “the contested measures are based not on acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities but on factual imputations derived from the press and the Internet.”

However, far from a minor and irrelevant technical glitch, as claimed by EU officials, the Hamas court case provided a long overdue window into the systematic failures of European Union’s foreign policy decision making, particularly regarding complex Israeli-Arab issues. Even a cursory examination of these EU policies exposes the degree to which slogans and myths, as repeated by journalists and officials of non-govermental organizations (NGOs), form the basis for decisions on crucial issues of war and peace. And the NGO input is, in turn, recycled through ready to print press releases, and quoted by the government officials. The result is an EU echo chamber, easily manipulated and cut off from the real world.

For example, last year, the foreign ministers of the EU, acting upon recommendations from their delegates in Brussels, and led by officials of the European Union External Action Service with their own agendas, adopted a policy of “guidelines” or a form of economic sanctions on Israel. This is part of a wider campaign to force israel back to the 1949 cease fire lines (mistakenly labeled the “pre-1967 borders”), and, in theory, impose an agreement without any change in the Palestinian narrative and incitement.

In taking this far-reaching political action, the EU did not create a task force, hold public hearings, or summon expert witnesses with differing perspectives. Instead, the molders of policy making on Israel in the bureaucracy of the EEAS outsourced the process, adopting the claims, biases, and problematic analyses of powerful NGOs, many of which are, in turn, funded by the EU. The steady diet of NGO publications was packaged in EU Heads of Missions reports (HoMs) for easy digestion.

The failure of the EU to dedicate serious resources to the independent collection of data and analysis is endemic across many issues. Many of the EU’s policies regarding Israel and the conflict are made by cutting and pasting the publications and tracts of political advocacy groups, including on such complex and sensitive isues as Jerusalem, borders, human rights, Bedouin land claims in the Negev, and the status of other Israeli minority groups. The claims of these groups, in turn, are usually based on hearsay (“Palestinian eyewitness testimony), and, as in the case of the Hamas decision in 2001, media reports and “the internet”.

Lost at Sea: NGO Legal Distortions in the Wake of the Flotilla Incident

NGO Monitor
03 June '10

Since the violent clash between the Free Gaza flotilla and Israeli naval forces on May 31, numerous NGOs and “human rights groups” have issued harsh and one-sided condemnations of Israel’s actions. Many of these statements have been couched in the terminology of international law. However, as the following analysis demonstrates, these claims are legally incorrect or dubious. They represent the continued exploitation of international law for political ends.

Claims:

1) Israel used excessive/disproportionate force

2) The blockade of Gaza is illegal and constitutes a form of collective punishment

3)Despite Israel’s 2005 “Disengagement,” Gaza continues to be under Israeli occupation

4)Israel’s actions constitute an act of piracy

1) Claim: Israel used excessive/disproportionate force

NGO quotes:

Adalah- “The Israeli military attack violates international law as it targeted civilians and civilian targets, and involved the use of disproportionate force.”
Amnesty International- “Israeli forces appear clearly to have used excessive force…Israel says its forces acted in self-defence, alleging that they were attacked by protestors, but it begs credibility that the level of lethal force used by Israeli troops could have been justified. It appears to have been out of all proportion to any threat posed.”

Analysis:

Israeli naval forces were met by violent activists wielding guns, knives, clubs and chains. According to video and audio released by the IDF, soldiers initially attempted to employ non-lethal force. Deadly force was only authorized after the soldiers were confronted by a well-armed crowd, and after they faced live fire. Several Israeli soldiers suffered gun and knife wounds. The right to self-defense in the face of an immediate and clear threat to one’s life is not contested in international law.

(Read full report)

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.
.