JERUSALEM - The research and watchdog group NGO Monitor (ngo-monitor.org) today called on the New Israel Fund (NIF) to implement clear "red lines" regarding the activities and rhetoric of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that it funds. NIF has been widely criticized for supporting advocacy groups that contribute centrally to demonization through allegations of "war crimes" and intense lobbying on behalf of the Goldstone Report.
"Instead of using its relationship with NGOs to advance constructive agendas, NIF has been supporting and defending campaigns that demonize and delegitimize Israel," charged Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. "In many cases, it appears that NIF donors are unaware of the activities of these groups and their damaging impact. It is essential that powerful organizations like NIF establish clear guidelines and implement them in a unequivocal and transparent manner."
NGO Monitor proposes that NIF adopt "red lines" that prevent funding for organizations that support activities designed to promote the NGO "Durban strategy" to isolate Israel:
1. BDS: Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns.
2. Demonization and delegitimization: Expressions including "apartheid," Nazi rhetoric, "war crimes," and deliberate misrepresentations of international law, as well as the use of UN frameworks for these goals.
3. Lawfare: Legal threats or activities in courts outside Israel directed against Israeli officials, "Zionist" or "parastatal" groups, or companies that do business in Israel.
4. Anti-Zionism: Opposition to the definition of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state," including demands for a "one-state solution," the revocation of the Law of Return, and the elimination of national Jewish symbols.
"For an organization that claims that 'our supporters love Israel,' these red lines should be self-evident," said Steinberg.
He added that NGO Monitor has raised these topics in reports and correspondence with NIF officials on several occasions, but NIF has been unwilling to engage in substantive debate. "We remain committed to serious dialogue with the NIF, to address and debate these important issues and develop effective guidelines for funding," Steinberg said.
NGO Monitor, 1 Ben Maimon Blvd, Jerusalem 92262, Israel
Tel: +972-2-566-1020 +972-2-566-1020 Fax: +972-77-511-7030
For further info contact comms@ngo-monitor.org
www.ngo-monitor.org
Showing posts with label Durban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Durban. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Calls at the UN to Bring Israel to Trial
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Tension is mounting in Israel as it awaits the publication of the Goldstone Commission’s report, which inquired into allegations directed against Israel relating to Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. The report is set to be published in the next few days.
The commission, headed by a South African judge, was established by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and is largely regarded as anti-Israel. Israel has refused to cooperate with the commission and argues that it has predicated much of its findings on false and biased information that it obtained from Hamas. There is concern that the findings will be quite harsh and serve as a basis for litigation against Israel for “war crimes”.
UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Navanethen Pillay, the South African judge, who hosted the anti-Israel Durban 2 conference last April, has already made clear her hope that the UN will ask The Hague to begin proceedings against Israel.
Pillay’s position is based on the Darfur precedent, since Israel has not ratified the international court’s charter and is not a member of it. The UN Security Council is authorized to order the start of litigation against countries that are not members of the court, and in the case of Darfur, the council did indeed instruct the court to start procedures against senior Sudanese officials for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. She said she hoped that the UN Security Council would respond in kind if the Goldstone Commission found possible war crimes.
Meanwhile the current president of the UN Human Rights Council rejected the demand of the “UN Watch” that British jurist Christine Chinkin be disqualified from the Goldstone Commission. The group argued that statements and articles by Chinkin in which she accused Israel of war crimes even before the commission had begun its work, which indicated that she held a predetermined bias.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Tension is mounting in Israel as it awaits the publication of the Goldstone Commission’s report, which inquired into allegations directed against Israel relating to Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. The report is set to be published in the next few days.
The commission, headed by a South African judge, was established by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and is largely regarded as anti-Israel. Israel has refused to cooperate with the commission and argues that it has predicated much of its findings on false and biased information that it obtained from Hamas. There is concern that the findings will be quite harsh and serve as a basis for litigation against Israel for “war crimes”.
UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Navanethen Pillay, the South African judge, who hosted the anti-Israel Durban 2 conference last April, has already made clear her hope that the UN will ask The Hague to begin proceedings against Israel.
Pillay’s position is based on the Darfur precedent, since Israel has not ratified the international court’s charter and is not a member of it. The UN Security Council is authorized to order the start of litigation against countries that are not members of the court, and in the case of Darfur, the council did indeed instruct the court to start procedures against senior Sudanese officials for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. She said she hoped that the UN Security Council would respond in kind if the Goldstone Commission found possible war crimes.
Meanwhile the current president of the UN Human Rights Council rejected the demand of the “UN Watch” that British jurist Christine Chinkin be disqualified from the Goldstone Commission. The group argued that statements and articles by Chinkin in which she accused Israel of war crimes even before the commission had begun its work, which indicated that she held a predetermined bias.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Peres To UN Chief: You Should Have Visited Auschwitz, Not Ahmadinejad
by David Bedein
Israeli President Shimon Peres harshly criticized U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during their Wednesday meeting in New York.
The meeting took place against the backdrop of Mr. Ban’s personal behavior during last month’s Durban II conference and the U.N.’s recent report criticizing Israeli conduct in Gaza four months ago.
Addressing the Durban II conference, Mr. Peres told Mr. Ban he should have taken his entourage to visit Auschwitz instead of sitting by idly as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech devoted to the denial of the Holocaust.
Unlike the European representatives, the U.N. secretary-general listened attentively to the entire speech and did not leave the hall.
“I am ashamed,” Mr. Peres said.
Mr. Ban, in response, tried to tone down Mr. Peres’ harsh statements and said, in his defense, Mr. Ahmadinejad had misled him.
The secretary-general said he had sat with Mr. Ahmadinejad and drafted a moderate statement with him for an hour prior to his speech at the Geneva, Switzerland-based conference.
However, Mr. Ahmadinejad went up to the stage and ignored their agreement, delivering a speech denying the Holocaust instead.
Mr. Ban said his position as secretary-general prevented him from leaving the hall, but Mr. Peres rejected his explanation.
Mr. Peres said he felt a great shame that the U.N. had chosen Holocaust Memorial Day, the worst day in the Jewish consciousness, to give a platform to such a despicable man.
After their discussion about the Durban II conference, the meeting continued to be tense because of the U.N. report on the Israeli operation in Gaza, among other reasons.
Mr. Ban said he had attempted to tone down the report and had softened many problematic parts and extracted clauses that deviated from the report’s original purpose.
The Israeli president gave Mr. Ban a sharp rhetorical question, inquiring if the U.N. expected Israel to sit idly by, since more than 4,000 rockets were fired on Israel in the past three years.
He lambasted the report’s ignorance of Hamas’ activities, such as planting bombs in kindergartens, buildings and even U.N. facilities.
The secretary-general responded by saying the U.N. would not begin another inquiry into Operation Cast Lead, as the Gaza incursion is referred to by Israel, without the Jewish state’s consent.
Mr. Peres admitted Israel made some mistakes in the course if the operation and said Israel did not intend to deliberately kill civilians; however, he also said the Arabs who fire from Gaza do.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Israeli President Shimon Peres harshly criticized U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during their Wednesday meeting in New York.
The meeting took place against the backdrop of Mr. Ban’s personal behavior during last month’s Durban II conference and the U.N.’s recent report criticizing Israeli conduct in Gaza four months ago.
Addressing the Durban II conference, Mr. Peres told Mr. Ban he should have taken his entourage to visit Auschwitz instead of sitting by idly as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech devoted to the denial of the Holocaust.
Unlike the European representatives, the U.N. secretary-general listened attentively to the entire speech and did not leave the hall.
“I am ashamed,” Mr. Peres said.
Mr. Ban, in response, tried to tone down Mr. Peres’ harsh statements and said, in his defense, Mr. Ahmadinejad had misled him.
The secretary-general said he had sat with Mr. Ahmadinejad and drafted a moderate statement with him for an hour prior to his speech at the Geneva, Switzerland-based conference.
However, Mr. Ahmadinejad went up to the stage and ignored their agreement, delivering a speech denying the Holocaust instead.
Mr. Ban said his position as secretary-general prevented him from leaving the hall, but Mr. Peres rejected his explanation.
Mr. Peres said he felt a great shame that the U.N. had chosen Holocaust Memorial Day, the worst day in the Jewish consciousness, to give a platform to such a despicable man.
After their discussion about the Durban II conference, the meeting continued to be tense because of the U.N. report on the Israeli operation in Gaza, among other reasons.
Mr. Ban said he had attempted to tone down the report and had softened many problematic parts and extracted clauses that deviated from the report’s original purpose.
The Israeli president gave Mr. Ban a sharp rhetorical question, inquiring if the U.N. expected Israel to sit idly by, since more than 4,000 rockets were fired on Israel in the past three years.
He lambasted the report’s ignorance of Hamas’ activities, such as planting bombs in kindergartens, buildings and even U.N. facilities.
The secretary-general responded by saying the U.N. would not begin another inquiry into Operation Cast Lead, as the Gaza incursion is referred to by Israel, without the Jewish state’s consent.
Mr. Peres admitted Israel made some mistakes in the course if the operation and said Israel did not intend to deliberately kill civilians; however, he also said the Arabs who fire from Gaza do.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Former Israeli Security Official Frowns Upon Papal Visit
by David Bedein
An overwhelming number of rabbis, reporters, pundits, journalists and academics in Israel have joined forces to welcome the Pope Benedict XVI on his scheduled visit to Israel.
Israel’s official radio and TV stations have gone out of their way to present hourly updates concerning the Papal visit.
However, dissenting voices to the official welcome are now being heard in diverse circles.
General (res.) Giora Eiland, the former head of the Israel National Security Council, wrote a guest editorial in Israel’s largest daily newspaer, Yediot Aharonot, titled “Harmful Groveling.”
In his article, he wrote: “It would have been better for this visit not to take place, and contrary to conventional wisdom, it will cause diplomatic harm to Israel rather than benefit.”
Gen. Eiland reminded the Israeli public that Pope Benedict XVI had served as a conscript in the German army, the Wehrmacht, which played a major role in the mass murder of Jews during World War II.
He also criticized the Pope’s desire to beatify Pope Pius XII, who served in the Vatican during World War II.
He wrote: “There are dozens of reports documenting Church representatives, the Cardinals of Holland, Austria and Ukraine, who sent letters to the pope reporting murderous acts by the Nazis, with dates, places and numbers of victims... Pope Pius XII opted to disregard this”
Gen. Eiland also reminded the public that “there were senior Catholic figures who asked him to issue a clear statement, which, even if it did not deter the Nazis, would at least give rise to hesitations among Catholic collaborators in Poland, Ukraine and other countries,” yet “the Pope refused.”
Gen. Eiland also raised questions about the Pope’s desire to visit the State of Israel and raised the fear that “He wants to come here because the holiest sites to Christianity happen to be under Israeli sovereignty.”
Yet from Gen. Eilan’s point of view, the unkindest cut of all was when “The [P]ope voiced support for the Durban II conference” along with his visit to the Palestinian Authority in an United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) refugee camp near the security fence next to Bethlehem, “so that Palestinian refugees and the fence will provide a fine backdrop for his message.”
Given this background, Gen. Eiland questioned Israel’s willingness to host the Pope and to cover the full $10 million in costs from Israeli taxpayer money, with more than 80,000 police officers assigned to the task at hand.
In conclusion, Gen. Eiland wrote: “Groveling before the pope is a shameful act, and contrary to conventional wisdom, it bears no diplomatic benefit. Just as an unnecessary confrontation can harm the state’s standing, so too can unnecessary groveling be harmful. If we were to say to the Vatican that ‘the time is not right for a visit,’ we would be doing something both justified from a Jewish standpoint and wise from a diplomatic standpoint.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
An overwhelming number of rabbis, reporters, pundits, journalists and academics in Israel have joined forces to welcome the Pope Benedict XVI on his scheduled visit to Israel.
Israel’s official radio and TV stations have gone out of their way to present hourly updates concerning the Papal visit.
However, dissenting voices to the official welcome are now being heard in diverse circles.
General (res.) Giora Eiland, the former head of the Israel National Security Council, wrote a guest editorial in Israel’s largest daily newspaer, Yediot Aharonot, titled “Harmful Groveling.”
In his article, he wrote: “It would have been better for this visit not to take place, and contrary to conventional wisdom, it will cause diplomatic harm to Israel rather than benefit.”
Gen. Eiland reminded the Israeli public that Pope Benedict XVI had served as a conscript in the German army, the Wehrmacht, which played a major role in the mass murder of Jews during World War II.
He also criticized the Pope’s desire to beatify Pope Pius XII, who served in the Vatican during World War II.
He wrote: “There are dozens of reports documenting Church representatives, the Cardinals of Holland, Austria and Ukraine, who sent letters to the pope reporting murderous acts by the Nazis, with dates, places and numbers of victims... Pope Pius XII opted to disregard this”
Gen. Eiland also reminded the public that “there were senior Catholic figures who asked him to issue a clear statement, which, even if it did not deter the Nazis, would at least give rise to hesitations among Catholic collaborators in Poland, Ukraine and other countries,” yet “the Pope refused.”
Gen. Eiland also raised questions about the Pope’s desire to visit the State of Israel and raised the fear that “He wants to come here because the holiest sites to Christianity happen to be under Israeli sovereignty.”
Yet from Gen. Eilan’s point of view, the unkindest cut of all was when “The [P]ope voiced support for the Durban II conference” along with his visit to the Palestinian Authority in an United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) refugee camp near the security fence next to Bethlehem, “so that Palestinian refugees and the fence will provide a fine backdrop for his message.”
Given this background, Gen. Eiland questioned Israel’s willingness to host the Pope and to cover the full $10 million in costs from Israeli taxpayer money, with more than 80,000 police officers assigned to the task at hand.
In conclusion, Gen. Eiland wrote: “Groveling before the pope is a shameful act, and contrary to conventional wisdom, it bears no diplomatic benefit. Just as an unnecessary confrontation can harm the state’s standing, so too can unnecessary groveling be harmful. If we were to say to the Vatican that ‘the time is not right for a visit,’ we would be doing something both justified from a Jewish standpoint and wise from a diplomatic standpoint.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
