The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitismhttps://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism About the IHRA non-legally binding working definition of antisemitismThe IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combatting it. IHRA experts determined that in order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is. The IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial worked to build international consensus around a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism, which was subsequently adopted by the Plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important tool with practical applicability for its Member Countries. This is just one illustration of how the IHRA has equipped policymakers to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national level. The working definition of antisemitismIn the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism. On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to: Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries. Information on adoption and endorsementNational levelThe following UN member states have adopted or endorsed the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Beyond the countries listed below, a wide range of other political entities, including a large number of regional/state and local governments, have done so as well. Albania (22 October 2020) Argentina (4 June 2020) Austria (25 April 2017) Belgium (14 December 2018) Bulgaria (18 October 2017) Canada (27 June 2019) Cyprus (18 December 2019) Czech Republic (25 January 2019) France (3 December 2019) Germany (20 September 2017) Greece (8 November 2019) Guatemala (27 January 2021) Hungary (18 February 2019) Israel (22 January 2017) Italy (17 January 2020) Lithuania (24 January 2018) Luxembourg (10 July 2019) Moldova (18 January 2019) Netherlands (27 November 2018) North Macedonia (6 March 2018) Romania (25 May 2017) Serbia (26 February 2020) Slovakia (28 November 2018) Slovenia (20 December 2018) Spain (22 July 2020) Sweden (21 January 2020) United Kingdom (12 December 2016) United States (11 December 2019) Uruguay (27 January 2020) OrganizationsThe following international organizations have expressed support for the working definition of antisemitism: United Nations
European Union Organization of American States Council of Europe |
|
EU Recommends Boycott Against Israelis in YeshaThe European Union has formally recommended its 27 members “prevent” Israeli activity in Judea and Samaria through an economic boycott.Chana Ya’ar , 26Febuary2013 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165670
|
|
EU court rules products from Israeli settlements must be labeledBarak Ravid of Israel’s Channel 13 news Nov 12, 2019 https://www.axios.com/european-union-israeli-settlement-products-labels-d557758a-76aa-4059-ba07-e3169b4373e0.html The European Court of Justice ruled Tuesday that all European Union member states must label goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights — identifying them as products from an Israeli settlement. Why it matters: The court’s decision could have a big influence on Israeli trade with the EU — and on U.S. trade with the continent. Israel asked both the Trump administration and Congress to put pressure on the EU not to implement the ruling.
What happened: In 2015 the EU published guidelines for labeling goods from Israeli settlements. At the time, some EU member states implemented the guidelines and many ignored them.
Last June, the EU’s legal adviser gave the court a legal opinion stressing that goods from Israeli settlements must be labeled so consumers would not be misinformed about their origin and to make clear they were not produced in Israel.
The big picture: Berg used U.S. law firms and lobbyists to mobilize support in Congress and the State Department. The Israeli government also asked for the Trump administration’s help.
|
|
The Problem With Labels and the European Union by Chava Light 12November2015  The Problem With Labels and the European Union, by Chava Light. |
|
EU’s Highest Court Opens Pandora’s Box of Politicized Product Labeling for All Countries that Export to the EU
 The Court of Justice of the European Union Press Release – For Immediate Release Media Contact: CJEU decision that EU law allows for discrimination against Israeli Jews will enable product labels to be used for political purposes, complicate U.S.-EU trade relations LUXEMBOURG — Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a disastrous and imprudent decision that supports derogatory French labeling requirements imposed on Israeli products and obligates similar requirements throughout the EU. This decision mandates religious discrimination, treating Jewish-owned and Muslim-owned businesses differently even if they operate in the same geographic location. It also opens up a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences, allowing anyone to bring an action requiring labeling of any exports to the EU based on subjective “ethical considerations.” The French regulation under consideration mandated that Israeli-made products from East Jerusalem, the Golan, and Israeli territories west of the Jordan river be labeled with the designation “colonies israéliennes” (“Israeli colony” or “settlement”). The controversial regulation was driven by foreign policy concerns, and contributes in no demonstrable way to food safety or consumer protection. In fact, polls have shown that consumer choice is in no way affected by such discriminatory labeling of Israeli products. The Lawfare Project and Cabinet Briard initiated legal action in 2017 on behalf of the award-winning Israeli winemaker Psâgot, challenging the regulation before France’s administrative supreme court (Conseil d’État), which asked for guidance from the CJEU. The only way to avoid complete global trade pandemonium would be to limit labeling requirements to Jews, the definition of antisemitism The Court’s decision is discriminatory on its face; goods produced by Jewish people and Muslim people in the same region will have different labels because of political decisions made by European officials. Mandating an ethnic and religious element to labeling products is a dangerous precedent. Indeed, the decision is completely unenforceable in areas like the Golan where there are no defined “settlements” and compliance would require some sort of census of the ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion of the producers in order to determine how products must be labeled. The illogic of the ruling is further evidenced by the fact that Palestinian Muslims—the very population the Court deems to be legal inhabitants of, and who do business in, Israeli-controlled areas—will themselves be subject to derogatory labeling. And, while Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, the Court seeks to call Jews foreigners in their own home. The Court’s assertion that even the most precise geographic location or address of the manufacturer is inadequate, and that the ethnicity and/or nationality of the producers themselves is a necessary factor for labeling, is a clear-cut indication that the intention is to encourage discrimination. The Pandora’s box for politicized labeling has been opened. What started with Israel will not end with Israel. The Court’s decision creates new barriers and disruptions to international trade, contrary to EU policy and in violation of the EU’s WTO obligations, as The Lawfare Project has previously warned. Indeed, there will be far-ranging consequences not just for Israelis but for all countries that export to the EU. The decision allows any consumer to object to the labeling of any country’s exports, based on any “ethical consideration” whatsoever, including environmental, sanitary, political, social, legal, or otherwise. EU consumers can now bring actions mandating that oil produced in Iran indicate that Iran executes homosexuals, that goods produced in China indicate that China detains political prisoners, that shrimp produced from the disputed territory of New Caledonia be labeled “New Caledonia–French Colony,” that products from Quebec indicate whether they are made by English or French speakers, and that items produced in the United States indicate whether the manufacturer supports President Trump. Besides, the “ethical considerations” of an individual in France may differ from those of someone in Poland, which may differ from someone in Germany, and so on. This would not only lead to inconsistent labeling throughout Europe, but will unquestionably create chaos and uncertainty in international trade. In fact, at least one lawsuit has already been filed by a consumer protection association in France, demanding that the court enforce labeling of Iranian, Chinese, U.S., and even French products pursuant to the astonishingly expansive “ethical considerations” mandate. The CJEU’s decision will result in untenable product labeling requirements, wreaking havoc on the global trade system. EU countries are now left with three options: either amend the trade regulation at issue, open the door to unpredictable and chaotic politicized labeling, or apply the decision to Israel and only Israel. This last option would fly in the face of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, according to which a contemporary example of antisemitism is “[a]pplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Application of the CJEU decision to Israeli products will trigger U.S. anti-boycott law and potentially disrupt U.S.-EU trade relations Boycotts of Israel are illegal in the United States. High-ranking U.S. Senators and Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, have warned of the negative implications for U.S.-EU relations and trade. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said this decision would “create policy tensions with the United States.” François-Henri Briard, lead counsel on the case, released the following statement:
Brooke Goldstein, Executive Director of The Lawfare Project, released the following statement:
Yaakov Berg, CEO of Psâgot Winery, released the following statement:
Gabriel Groisman, legal adviser for Psâgot Winery, released the following statement:
The fight is not over. Psâgot’s legal action will now be remanded back to the French court, where we will argue against the labeling requirements being applied exclusively to Israel on the basis of French anti-discrimination law. We are committed to challenging enforcement in every country and every locality that attempts to discriminate against persons based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.
 Regavim @RegavimIsrael Nov 27, 2019 tweet Today’s award for most courageous politician: @LanceForman of @brexitparty_uk for his 1-minute blast of truth. Hello, @EUpalestinians – anyone home?
EU Parliamentarian, Lance Forman, tells the truth about Israeli “illegal settlements” |
|
Margaret Thatcher’s Amazing Prophecy On The EUTyler Durden 19December2019 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/margaret-thatchers-amazing-prophecy-eu Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk, On Sep 19, 1992 Margaret Thatcher gave a visionary speech at the World Economic Development Conference regarding the EU. (sottotitolato) Margaret Thatcher celebrates ERM exit and foretells the disasters of EMU |
|
Tomorrow´s Research TodaySSRN´s eLibrary provides 950,733 research papers from 503,172 researchers in more than 50 disciplines. Compare the EU boycott with the Arab boycott:The Arab League Boycott and WTO Accession: Can Foreign Policy Excuse Discriminatory Sanctions?George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-22 Posted: 14 May 2003 Posted: 14 May 2003 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=406780 Download Paper Eugene KontorovichGeorge Mason University – Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty AbstractThe central principle of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, now incorporated into the rules of the World Trade Organization, is the prohibition of discriminatory restrictions on international trade. However, some scholars contend that GATT applies only to trade restrictions adopted to protect domestic industry from foreign competition or for other economic purposes, and not to restrictions adopted for non-economic foreign policy reasons. While this purported foreign policy exception has been endorsed by the Restatement, it has received little critical attention from commentators. Recent developments in the WTO have made the legitimacy of the exception a matter of pressing concern not just to scholars of international trade law but to the free trade system itself. Saudi Arabia is expected to be admitted into the organization in the next few years. However, Saudi Arabia maintains a total boycott of Israel and a secondary and tertiary boycott of firms and individuals in the United States and elsewhere that trade with Israel. The boycott is part of the Arab League Boycott of Israel. This Article uses the occasion of Saudi Arabia’s accession bid to examine the unresolved issue of whether GATT applies to trade restrictions imposed for purely foreign policy purposes. It finds that such an exception would be inconsistent with the language, structure, usage, purpose, and history of GATT. This in turn shows that Saudi Arabia’s secondary and tertiary boycott violates WTO rules. Thus the accession of nations, like Saudi Arabia, that maintain the secondary and tertiary prongs of the Arab League Boycott would undermine the WTO’s commitment to free trade and injure existing members. The Article concludes that these harms could not be redressed within the WTO framework, and thus the best way to avoid them is to condition accession on a termination of the secondary and tertiary boycott. JEL Classification: F01, F02, F35 Israel needs to take the EU to the WTO. This violates all trade agreements and the WTO can award triple damages on all Israeli imports to the EU. That would be very beneficial as Israel could then claim everything they produce and sell is subject to the illegal EU boycott and get triple what they would normally get |
|
How the “Blaocklisting of Israeli Companies” will effect the local Arab populationUNHCR Expected to Release Israeli Company ‘Blacklist’The only thing the EU and the UNHCR are concerned about is the destruction of Israel and the Jews. They don’t give a Damn about the local Arab pupulaion. |
|
The European Union Labels Itself BiasedAmb. Alan Baker November 13, 2019 http://jcpa.org/the-european-union-labels-itself-biased/ The European Court of Justice issued a controversial ruling on November 12, 2019, and declared:
Any reaction to the EU policy of labeling products manufactured in Israeli settlements should consider the following points: The EU-directed policy requiring member states to label products made in Israeli settlements is intended to harm Israel and Israel only, as a distinct political action and as a means of pressuring Israel politically. This measure has no substantive connection with whether settlement products meet EU and individual state sanitary, health, hygienic, production, packaging, cleanliness, or other quality standards. It is a purely selective, discriminatory, and political imposition. The EU labeling policy is based on a unilateral EU premise that Israel’s settlements are contrary to international law. This premise runs counter to other relevant legal opinions as to the legitimacy of Israel’s settlement policy in accordance with the accepted international norms regarding the administration of territory. Additionally, and more importantly, the issue of Israel’s settlements is an agreed negotiating issue between Israel and the PLO, pursuant to the Oslo Accords. Thus, the EU labeling directive is tantamount to interference in, and prejudgment of an agreed negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians. The EU labeling requirement is an overt, political measure strengthening the already existing links between the EU and the predominantly European BDS campaign. It represents full identification of the EU and its member states with the aims of the BDS movement to undermine Israel and to weaken the relations between European countries and Israel. The selective and discriminatory EU labeling policy directed solely against Israel blatantly ignores the numerous situations in the world where states administering territories have transferred hundreds and thousands of their own citizens into the territories they are administering, such as Turkey in Northern Cyprus, Morocco in the occupied territory of Western Sahara, Russia in occupied Ukrainian territory, and the like. This is indicative of an acute double standard in EU policies, raising pertinent questions regarding the real motivation behind such policy. This selective and discriminatory EU labeling policy is both immoral and hypocritical, driven by manipulation and political pressure by those within the EU who have consistently acted to push member states to interfere in the Middle East dispute and take biased and unilateral positions intended to undermine the integrity of the peace negotiations in a manner directed at harming Israel. The EU labeling policy, in effect, cancels any bona fide European pretension to participate in the peace negotiation process between Israel and the Palestinians. Cooperating with the EU labeling directive means that the EU has taken sides and has prejudged one of the central negotiating issues – that of settlements – which is still an open issue on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating table. EU member states that support and implement the discriminatory labeling policy will, in fact, by taking such a biased and discriminatory position, remove themselves from any cycle of involvement in the peace process, and will, in effect, be sabotaging the process and damaging the integrity and bona fides of the negotiations. The EU policy undermines the EU status as one of the signatories to the Oslo Accords, together with the leaders of the United States, Russia, Norway, Egypt, and Jordan; the UN also endorsed the Accords. It also undermines the status of the EU as a member of the Middle East Quartet, together with the UN, Russia, and the United States. Self-respecting European states that genuinely believe in the importance of advancing the Israel-Palestinian peace negotiation process cannot identify with or implement such an EU discriminatory measure intended to harm Israel. Even-handed and fair-minded states will not allow themselves to be manipulated by politically-driven elements within the EU seeking to weaken Israel, the integrity of the peace process, and their own interests. |
|
European Union Slaps ‘New Kind Of Yellow Star On Jewish-Made Products’A survey of 2,504 French adults found that 69 percent of respondents would not buy products labeled ‘made in Israel.’By Melissa Langsam Braunstein 19November2019 https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/19/european-union-slaps-new-kind-of-yellow-star-on-jewish-made-products/  Symbol that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust, so that they could be identified as Jews. Comments: The EU just as the Arabs, wants to bring back Classic Antisemitism labeling as with the Yellow Star of David of the NAZI and Medieval Period to Israeli products because Israel is the TRUE JEWISH State and the true homeland of the Jews.Europe’s highest court isn’t exactly telling everybody to boycott Israeli food and wine. But they’re doing their darnedest to ensure Europeans don’t buy them. For anyone who missed the news, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled last week that food and wine produced by Jewish Israelis beyond the Green Line must be explicitly marked: “‘Israeli settlement’ or equivalent needs to be added, in brackets, for example. Therefore, expressions such as ‘product from the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement)’ or ‘product from the West Bank (Israeli settlement)’ could be used.” Eugene Kontorovich, director of the Center for International Law in the Middle East at George Mason University Scalia Law School, considers the new labels “a new kind of Yellow Star on Jewish-made products.” He told The Federalist that the CJEU’s labeling requirements “are not geographic—they are not about where something was made but by whom.” Kontorovich added, “They’re not even pretending that the rules they’re applying to Israel are the rules they’re applying to the rest of the world.” Readers may recall that when the court’s advocate general suggested such labeling earlier this year, his reasoning was that consumers needed “neutral and objective information.” But this outcome is neither neutral nor objective. As Marc Greendorfer, president of Zachor Legal Institute, which battles Israel boycotts, emailed, “That the court contravened established principles of international law to wrongly stipulate the status of the disputed areas (as occupied) exposes the fact that this ruling was about taking sides in a political dispute.” “Labels are not the place to engage in political debate,” Brooke Goldstein, executive director of the Lawfare Project, which participated in this case, told The Federalist. Indeed, product labeling is supposed to be about health and safety. Labels also help consumers shop “ethically” or “responsibly.” But if a consumer factors politics into those decisions and wants to avoid Israeli goods, why is it so important to specify where in Israel those goods are produced? According to a 2017 poll conducted by Opinion Way for the Lawfare Project, a survey of 2,504 French adults found that 69 percent of respondents would not buy products labeled “made in Israel.” That number rose to 75 percent if labels read “West Bank, Israeli colony/settlement.” So more detailed labeling would clearly shift some shoppers’ habits, but those figures are already startlingly high. While the CJEU may not be declaring a boycott with this ruling— after all, it remains legal to import Israeli goods — they are nudging consumers in that direction. Even the U.S. State Department, which typically avoids criticizing allies, expressed “deep concern,” calling “the circumstances surrounding the labeling requirement . . . suggestive of anti-Israel bias.” They also rightly noted that “this requirement serves only to encourage, facilitate, and promote boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel,” a movement Germany’s own parliament considers antisemitic, and even Nazi-like. This decision is not focused on informing consumers about unconscionable behavior across the globe (e.g., the Chinese government’s treatment of Uyghurs) or highlighting the world’s many disputed territories (see: Western Sahara, Cyprus, and Crimea for starters). It is about ostracizing the world’s only Jewish nation and unilaterally redrawing Israel’s borders via economic pressure. The aforementioned French survey underscores just how widespread popular prejudice against Israel is in France, long home to Europe’s largest Jewish community. Rather than calm that prejudice, the CJEU panders to it, inflames it, and now embeds it in law. So it won’t be surprising if antagonism to Israel keeps rising in France and the rest of Europe. Stigmatizing Israel now has the gloss of official, legal respectability. The whole episode is offensive. Consider, this long-awaited decision was scheduled for release on November 12. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum reminds us that date is significant, as “just 2 days after the end of Kristallnacht [in 1938], the Nazi government issued the Decree on the Elimination of the Jews from Economic Life. Banned from owning shops or selling any kind of good or service, most Jews lost their livelihoods entirely.” Further, by establishing a unique standard for Israel, this decision fits the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism, cited in the United Nations’ recent report on global antisemitism. So it’s rich for the European Commission to tell Fox News, “Any suggestion that indication of origin on products coming from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory or in the occupied Golan has anything to do with targeting Jews or anti-Semitism is unacceptable. The EU stands strongly and unequivocally against any form of anti-Semitism.” Check out that loaded word choice. Then consider that such critiques are fair game. The EU does not stand unequivocally against antisemitism. There are bright spots, like Austria’s second largest city banning support for BDS. However, European Jews are acutely aware that antisemitism is widespread and dangerous. EU officials like Michael O’Flaherty, director of the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency, know that in spite of the many reported antisemitic crimes across the EU, 80 percent remain uncounted. “As one person asked [O’Flaherty], ‘Why would I report antisemitism to an antisemite?’” Over in Britain, which has not quite left the EU, nearly half of British Jews have said they “would ‘seriously consider’ emigrating if [Labour Party leader Jeremy] Corbyn is elected prime minister [in December].” Seventy-four years after the Holocaust’s end, the EU is no haven for Jews. Nor is it a particularly reliable friend to Israel. Calling the decision “disgraceful,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told The Federalist, “This labeling singles out Jews who live in communities where Europeans don’t think they should be allowed to live and identifies them for boycotts. It is reminiscent of the darkest moments in Europe’s history.” Indeed, the CJEU may have forgotten, but world Jewry hasn’t. We also know that discrimination and other harms that start with Jews never end with us. So whether or not the timing was coincidental, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcing a reversal of Obama-era policy regarding Israel’s settlements certainly looks fortuitous, because this fight is far from over. Melissa Langsam Braunstein, a former U.S. Department of State speechwriter, is an independent writer in Washington DC and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, National Review Online, and RealClearPolitics, among others. She has appeared on EWTN and WMAL. Melissa shares all of her writing on her website and tweets as @slowhoneybee. |
|
EU Reveals its True Colorsby Peter Martino July 24, 2013 http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3867/eu-israel-directive The EU guidelines are clearly anti-Semitic: they are a unique set of guidelines crafted for the occasion of targeting Jews. The EU does not ask similar guarantees of China for Tibet, Turkey for Cyprus, or Indonesia for Western Papua. Last week, the European Union issued guidelines regarding the use of EU funds in Israel. From now on, Israeli institutions cooperating with the EU or benefitting from EU funding must demonstrate that they have no direct or indirect links to Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. The guidelines, drawn up by the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, bind the EU, a supranational organization of 28 European nations, and one of the world’s largest donors of development aid. The guidelines also forbid any funding, cooperation, awarding of scholarships, research funds or prizes to anyone residing in Jewish settlements in Israeli territories outside Israel’s 1967 borders. Only the 500,000 Jewish inhabitants of Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are singled out in this respect. The EU guidelines are clearly anti-Semitic: they are a unique set of guidelines crafted for the occasion of targeting Jews. The EU does not ask similar guarantees of Chinese institutions regarding their links with Chinese occupied Tibet, nor does the EU forbid any funding, cooperation, awarding of scholarships, research funds or prizes to ethnic Chinese residing in Tibet. Neither has the EU issued similar guidelines regarding Turkey and Turkish occupied Northern Cyprus, Morocco and Moroccan occupied Western Sahara, Indonesia and Indonesian occupied Western Papua, or territorial disputes anywhere else in the world. In issuing the guidelines, the EU has come out in full support of the so-called “BDS” movement, which advocates “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” against the Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The EU decided to draw up the guidelines last December, shortly after a group of 22 political NGOs, all of them supporting BDS, called on Brussels to join the BDS actions. Ironically, many of these political NGOs, despite their involvement in a delegitimization campaign against Israel, have themselves for years been beneficiaries of millions of euros of EU money. In effect, the EU has been funding political NGOs whose main objective it was to pressure the EU member states into adopting anti-Semitic policies.
That a supposedly politically neutral organization, such as the EU, sponsors political groups that aim to force this organization to adopt certain policies is in itself irregular. As Prof. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor points out, “The new EU guidelines are evidence of the influence of political NGOs – some funded by the EU – on the EU’s policies. The practical results are worrisome and reflect a faulty and one-sided agenda.” However, that these policies are directed against one specific ethnic group, namely Jews, makes them not just irregular and worrisome, but outrageous. And the fact that taxpayers’ money is used to this end, including taxes paid by the Jewish citizens of the EU states, makes them shameful and repulsive. Given the EU’s support for politicized attacks against Israel and its discrimination against, for example, Jews living in East Jerusalem, the EU can no longer be considered a neutral body in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The new EU guidelines bolster the Palestinian claim to all territories east of the 1967 borders. The guidelines have angered Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said: “We will not accept any outside diktat about our borders.” The EU guidelines are not helpful to the peace process either, since they attempt to predetermine the outcome of negotiations before the Palestinians even agree to sit at the negotiating table. There is little doubt that the EU diplomats are aware of that. They also know that the 1967 borders, which confine the state of Israel to the territory west of the 1949 armistice line, make the borders of the State of Israel militarily virtually indefensible. It is also clear that if the Golan Heights are returned to Syria, these strategic lands will fall into the hands of either Hezbollah or al-Qaida – organizations which have sworn to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. Yet, that seems to be how the EU would love to have Israel: Indefensible and as small as possible. The EU guidelines indicate that Brussels denies Israel the right to an adequate and effective self-defense. Considering the immense suffering which many of the current EU member states inflicted on the Jews seventy years ago, Brussels, rather than undermining the safety of the Jewish State, should insist on guaranteeing Israel a right to safe and viable borders. Sadly, by issuing guidelines steeped in anti-Semitism, it is doing exactly the opposite. |
|
Jerusalem Cats Comments:
|
Some really creative ideas to deal with the EU Boycott of Yesha Israel
 Sacto Right to Know GMO Labeling This is exactly why s.720 – the Israel anti-boycott act is so important.Israel Anti-Boycott Act This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas. The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:
The bill prohibits any U.S. person engaged interstate or foreign commerce from supporting:
The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the government of Israel. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720 Israel needs to place a 100% Tariff on all EU GoodsIsrael needs to have a Crash Emergency program to develop the IAI Lavi Fighter and reverse engineer any product that is imported into Israel.Israel needs to have an Emergency Aliyah program that will entail both Nefesh B’Nefesh, The Jewish Agency and Israeli family contacting their friends and family members still living outside of Israel.
|
|
2 Israeli women mugged at New York subway stationTwo Israeli tourists attacked, robbed at knife-point in mugging at Brooklyn subway station.Arutz Sheva Staff, 08December2019 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/272879 |
|
מבט – גל פיגועים בארצות הברית והחמור שבהם הלילה בניו יורק | כאן 11 לשעבר רשות השידור |
|
Israeli Ministry of Aliyah and Integration ad – יום הזיכרוןKlitaGov |
|
|
|
|
|
 The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies BESA https://besacenter.org/ Fighting the Demonization of Israel at the International Criminal CourtBy Prof. Eytan Gilboa BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,386, 30December2019 https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-international-criminal-court/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague, has decided to indict senior Israeli policymakers and military officers for committing war crimes in the West Bank and Gaza. Her decision is baseless, preposterous, and discriminatory, and it violates the ICC’s own mission and rules. Bensouda’s action should be placed within the wider context of the Palestinian disinformation, delegitimization, and demonization campaign against Israel at international organizations. Israel should discredit and delegitimize the ICC in turn via aggressive political measures and collaboration with concerned liberal democracies, primarily the US.What should Israel do?
|
|
Pompeo Declares BDS Movement Antisemitic, Seeks to Defund Anti-Israel Boycott CampaignersPosted by Vijeta Uniyal Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 3:00pm https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/pompeo-declares-bds-movement-antisemitic-seeks-to-defund-anti-israel-boycott-campaigners/ Secretary of State Mike: “We want to join all the other nations that recognize BDS for the cancer that it is.”
 Pompeo-Declares-anti-Israel-BDS-Movement-Antisemitic The State Department “will regard the global anti-Israel BDS campaign as anti-Semitic,” Secretary Pompeo said during a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem.
The State Department “will immediately take steps to identify organizations that engage in hateful BDS conduct, and withdraw US government support for such groups.” Secretary Pompeo announced on the second day of his Israel trip. “We want to join all the other nations that recognize BDS for the cancer that it is,” he added. Thursday’s move will “cut off government support for any organizations taking part in it, a step that could deny funding to Palestinian and international human rights groups,” the Associated Press noted. President Donald Trump’s administration is considering cutting U.S. funding for international activist groups who have been supporting boycott calls against Israel, including big names like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam, news reports suggest.
Israeli TV network i24News reported Secretary Pompeo’s remarks:
 Lahav-Harkov-tweet-19November2020-labeling-products-made-in-Israel On Thursday, Secretary Pompeo became the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Israel’s Judea and Samaria region, often referred to in the mainstream media as the “West Bank.” President Trump last year recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the area. In a symbolic gesture, the Secretary of State visited the Psagot winery in Samaria. The top EU court, the European Court of Justice, in its November 2019 judgment, ruled against the winery, ordering mandatory labeling of products from the Judea and Samaria region as ‘settlement’ goods. “It is a blessing to be here in Judea and Samaria,” he wrote in the winery guestbook. “May I not be the last secretary of state to visit this beautiful land.” Rejecting discriminatory labeling of Israeli products as mandated by the EU, Secretary Pompeo announced on Thursday that products made in areas under Israeli sovereignty, which includes Judea and Samaria, “ will be required to mark goods as “Israel,” “Product of Israel,” or “Made in Israel” when exporting to the United States. ” The Palestinian leadership was angered by Pompeo’s visit to the region and his decision to do away with the discriminatory labeling. “The decision blatantly violates international law,” a spokesman for Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas declared. The PA “condemned” the announcement as “yet another biased, pro-Israeli move by US President Donald Trump’s administration,” the Times of Israel reported. ‘Secretary Mike Pompeo in Israel, Announces US Action Against BDS movement.’ Secretary Mike Pompeo in Israel, Announces US Action Against BDS movement
 Department-of-State-tweet-19November2020-Anti-Zionism-is-anti-Semitism |
|
European governments earmarked funds for anti-Israel lawfare at ICCPro-Israel NGOs say they were snubbed by the Hague.By LAHAV HARKOV 24December2019 15:07https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/European-governments-earmarked-funds-for-anti-Israel-lawfare-at-ICC-611975 Several European governments donated funds to organizations specifically for the purpose of fighting Israel in international legal forums, including the International Criminal Court, which announced last week that it will investigate of alleged war crimes committed by Israel and Palestinians.
Among the governments funding lawfare against Israel via Palestinians and Israeli organizations are Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France and the EU, the think tank NGO Monitor found.
The contract between the Swiss government and Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights, based in Gaza, specifies under the category of “lobbying, advocacy and networking” that the NGO plans to “provide and reports to the ICC on human rights violations committed by IOF,” which stands for “Israel Occupation Forces.”
Switzerland’s contract with the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights lists among its planned activities “conducting communications with the office of the General Prosecutor of the ICC and other international litigation mechanisms,” “sending communications to international litigation mechanisms,” with the ICC mentioned specifically,” and “enabling victims and witnesses to appear before int’l litigation mechanisms.”
PCHR’s stated measures of success include the number of meetings it has with the General Prosecutor of the ICC, the amount of communication it has with international litigation mechanisms and the number of witnesses it sends to them.
The organization Al Mezan, received 450,000 Euros from the EU in 2017-2020 and about 200,000 Euros from the Netherlands in 2018. The NGO listed “contribution to the enforcement of the international human rights mechanisms” as one of its goals in its contract with the Netherlands. The organization petitions international legal bodies to seek arrest warrants against Israeli officials, among other lawfare campaigns.
From 2014 to 2017, the governments of Sweden, Switzerland Denmark and the Netherlands funded the “Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat,” meant to support “current and future documentation and investigation efforts by CSOs [civil society organizations] for the purposes of assisting and supporting national and international mechanisms.”
The aforementioned organizations all received funding from this consortium, as did several Israeli NGOs, including B’Tselem, which “acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government…protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law.”
B’Tselem has received funding from the Netherlands Representative Office in Ramallah, as well as a Swedish church organization called Diakonia, funded by Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, and the EU, earmarked specifically to examine Israeli Supreme Court rulings.
Diakonia earmarked funds 176,000 Euros in 2018 and NIS 87,12 in 2019 for “examining rulings by the courts” about Palestinian human rights and house demolitions, respectively.
Dutch funding went to a “report on the role of the Israeli Supreme Court,” one of several by B’Tselem in recent years, and its documents note that “B’Tselem regularly refers to the Supreme Court as one of the main mechanisms that permits the ongoing occupation and human rights violations by granting judicial legitimacy to Israel’s policies.”
The Netherlands has also funded Yesh Din to the tune of 160,930 Euros in 2018. Yesh Din alleges that Israeli courts are unable to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the Israeli military or government and pushes for war crimes investigations against Israeli officials by the ICC.
This is of particular relevance for the ICC investigation, because one of the arguments Jerusalem has made against the Hague court’s authority to probe Israel is that it has a legitimate, independent judiciary and the ICC is meant to prosecute governments in countries where that is not the case. The ICC plans to examine that assertion.
Another Palestinian organization deeply involved in fighting against Israel in international legal bodies is Al-Haq, funded by the EU, France, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Spain.
Al-Haq Director Shawan Jabarin was convicted for recruiting and training for the PFLP in 1985, and as recently as 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court found that he is still involved in their activities.
The organization, together with the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, met with the Prosecutor of the ICC in 2013 to accuse Israel of “widespread and systematic commission of international crimes and violations of international law,” and has continued communications with that office in the subsequent years, repeatedly accusing Israel of war crimes in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza.
Meanwhile, some Israeli NGOs said they made attempts to present Israel’s case before the ICC, but were ignored.
International Jewish Lawyers Association President Meir Linzen told Channel 13 this week that the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor refused a meeting with him, in which he intended to “expose the war crimes committed by the Palestinians.” |
|
The International Criminal Court and the PalestiniansBy Paul Shindman 26December2019 https://honestreporting.com/international-criminal-court-palestinians/ The announcement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) that it will open an investigation into Palestinian allegations — including that West Bank settlements are war crimes — casts more doubt on the ability of the court to operate as it was intended. The ICC’s founders established the court “to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.” Failure on Four CountsRepeated Palestinian attempts to use the ICC as part of their lawfare against Israel have been documented over the years, but this most recent attempt fails on four basic counts. 1. By its own definition, “the ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.” Israel is a democratic state with judicial oversight with well-developed and competent civilian and military justice systems as in any other modern country. Israel has been and remains both willing and able to investigate and prosecute cases and has done so.
Prof. William Gumede, School of Governance, Univ. of Witwatersrand 2. The courts in Israel have addressed, or are still dealing with, all the legal issues in the Palestinian allegations including the 2014 Gaza war, the weekly Gaza-border riots organized by Hamas and ongoing settlement-related issues. There is a thoroughly documented history of Israel’s justice systems, both civilian and military, investigating and prosecuting the incidents and the ICC is not supposed to duplicate this. Dr. Clare Frances Moran, who is both a university lecturer on law and an assistant council at the ICC, notes the court “was intended to complement, not replace, national criminal systems, prosecuting only when states are unwilling or unable to do so.” 3. In 1993 when they signed the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians agreed that negotiations on legal issues would be conducted directly with Israel and not through third parties. The ICC should be directing the Palestinians to conduct themselves as stated in the signed accords. 4. Numerous expert opinions by legal analysts have concluded that the Palestinians do not meet the criteria for petitioning the ICC, of which Israel (like the United States and Russia) is not a member. There is still no recognized “state of Palestine.” While many sympathetic countries have “recognized” it as such, the Palestinians are only observers at the United Nations and have not fulfilled the international legal requirements to become an independent member of the world body. That the prosecutor at the ICC refers to the “State of Palestine” does not make it such. Doubts on the International Criminal Court’s CredibilityThe International Criminal Court, or ICC, is far from being universally recognized as a respected arbiter of record of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.” Since its establishment in 2002, the ICC has become different things to different people based more on what appears to be vested interest than on the rule of law. A major blow to the credibility of the ICC came earlier in 2019 with intense criticism not from Israel, but by the very people who were tasked with running it. Four former presidents of the Assembly of States Parties, the governing council of the ICC, issued a scathing letter in April, 2019 slamming the ICC’s poor performance and saying they were “disappointed… frustrated . . . and exasperated” by the deficiencies at the court.
Statement by four former presidents of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties The four, all veteran diplomats, criticized the ICC for failing to address war crimes in conflict areas like Syria and Yemen. Despite war crimes carried out in those countries documented and exposed in the press, and despite more than half a million innocent Syrian and Yemeni civilians killed, those two humanitarian crisis areas don’t even appear on the ICC website list of situations the court is investigating.
Palestinian LawfareHowever, just like at the United Nations in New York and at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the Palestinians have managed to get themselves a permanent listing on the ICC agenda. Like in other cases, the Palestinian petitions to the ICC appear to be weaponizing the international court as another tool against Israel.
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs legal assessment of the ICC Commenting in the blog of the European Journal of International Law, Prof. Douglas Guilfoyle harshly criticizes the “self-inflicted misfortune” of the ICC, in a meticulously detailed analysis that argues that the court in reality “is an intergovernmental organisation of limited competence in, unfortunately, every sense.” “The Rome Statute promised us a Court of last resort that would defer to genuine State prosecutions, not a Court of first resort which micromanages the conduct of national investigations and prosecutions,” said Guilfoyle. The ICC by definition has jurisdiction only over signatory states. Yet the ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda referred to the Palestinians as the “State of Palestine” despite that there is no independent state of “Palestine.” The UN classifies the Palestinians as having “non-Member Observer State status.” Like the UN, the ICC started out as a great concept on paper, but in practice its efficacy and relevance to its founding goals is leaving a lot to be desired. With its headquarters in The Hague, even the country that hosts the ICC, Holland, is demanding that the court reform itself and do better. Israel responded to the ICC in part with an in-depth legal assessment of the ICC’s position prepared by the Office of the Attorney General, concluding that given the mandate of the ICC and the fact that there is no state of Palestine, “the ICC manifestly lacks jurisdiction over the “situation in Palestine.” Instead of constructively facilitating Mideast peace, the International Criminal Court stains itself, unfairly smears Israel’s justice system and emboldens the Palestinians to avoid peace talks. |
A 5-step plan to fight the ICCThe International Criminal Court is not a legal body. It is a political organization that is exceedingly hostile to Israel. To fight it, Israel needs to ditch its failed legal strategy and adopt and implement an aggressive plan to defeat the ICC on its own political terms.by Caroline B. Glick Published on 23December2019 https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/12/23/a-5-step-plan-to-fight-the-icc/
Last year, then MK Tzipi Livni convened senior officials from the Justice Ministry and Military Advocate General’s international affairs departments at the Knesset for a conference. The purpose of the conclave was to provide the officials with the opportunity to justify their interference with security decisions that by law are the exclusive purview of the IDF’s field commanders and Israel’s elected leaders. As is their wont, the officials used the opportunity to proclaim, “the legal system is the IDF’s legal Iron Dome against accusations of war crimes in foreign and international forums.”
Following International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s decision over the weekend to prosecute Israel – including its armed forces and elected leaders – on phony war crimes allegations, we see that their conceit was a lie. The idea that Israel’s legal fraternity is Israel’s protection against the likes of Bensouda and the lawfare gang she runs with was first concocted in the 1990s by then Chief Justice Aharon Barak. The purpose of this fantasy was and remains to justify interference by the various components of the legal fraternity – the High Court, the Justice Ministry, the Attorney General and the Military Advocate General and others – in the decisions of IDF commanders and elected officials. As Prof. Avi Bell of Bar Ilan University Law School explained in Israel Hayom earlier this week, Bensouda’s decision exposed the colossal failure of the legal fraternity’s strategy for protecting the country from the lawfare gang. Bensouda’s decision is a horrible, strategic blow for Israel. It endangers the very lives of IDF soldiers, commanders and elected officials. Members of the legal fraternity asserted their competence to direct Israel’s responses by presenting the ICC as a legal body. But as the Rome Statute of 1998, which founded the ICC made clear, the institution’s political nature was evident from the outset, as was its inherent hostility to Israel. Now that Bensouda’s biased ruling has exposed this state of affairs, Israel must replace the lawyers’ failed legal strategy with a political one.
A political strategy for fighting the political ICC has five components:
The first component of the political strategy is institutional. Responsibility for handling the ICC has to be transferred from the lawyers who facilitated Bensouda’s hostile decision to the people who have to clean up the mess they made – the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. To this end, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to order all legal officials – from Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit to the Justice Ministry’s International Affairs Office to the Foreign Ministry’s Legal Advisor to the Military Advocate General’s International Law Department to cease and desist from all actions on the matter. These legal officials should be barred from making any statements to anyone about the ICC and prohibited from all communications with the ICC or regarding the ICC.
These government officials are charged with dealing with international legal matters. And Bensouda’s decision to prosecute Israel for imaginary war crimes proves beyond all doubt that the ICC is not engaged in anything resembling international law.
The second step is legislative. Whereas Israelis – the ICC’s #1 target – deluded themselves into believing that the ICC was a legal challenge best dealt with by lawyers, the Americans – its #2 target – were under no such delusions. To deal with this threat, in 2002 Congress passed the American Service Members’ Protection Act.
The goal of the ASPA, popularly dubbed “the Hague Invasion Act” is “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party.”
The law authorizes the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.”
The ASPA bars all US government bodies from assisting the ICC in any way and prohibits the transfer of US military assistance to countries that are party to the court.
The Knesset needs to follow Congress’ example. The Knesset should convene from recess in emergency session to pass an identical law. Indeed, it is outrageous that no such law has passed to date.
The third part of the political strategy for fighting the ICC is diplomatic. Here too, it involves following the US’s example. Led by then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, between 2002 and 2005, the United States negotiated agreements with dozens of countries to prohibit them from turning Americans over to the ICC.
The Foreign Ministry must engage every country Israel has diplomatic relations with, and particularly those that receive aid from Israel, including African states, and ask them to sign similar agreements. Israel should strongly consider conditioning the provision of further aid on the conclusion of such agreements.
Step four of the political strategy for fighting political war against the political ICC pertains to public relations. For the duration of the ICC’s existence, every Israeli representative everywhere in the world should be directed to attack the ICC at every opportunity. The purpose of the attacks is to delegitimize the ICC’s very existence and work towards its enfeeblement, delegitimization and dismantlement.
It ought to go without saying that Israel needs to cut off all official and unofficial contact with the ICC. All of its officials – indeed anyone even remotely associated with the ICC – must be banned from entering Israel. And any ICC officials presently on territory under Israeli control must be immediately expelled.
The final step Israel must take to beat back the ICC relates to its policies regarding Judea and Samaria. For the past several years, Mendelblit and his comrades have used the ICC inquiry to prevent the government from implementing its policies in the areas. For instance, according to multiple government sources, the reason Netanyahu has failed to evacuate Khan al-Ahmar, despite a Supreme Court ruling requiring the illegal Beduin encampment that threatens the access road to Kfar Adumim to be dismantled, and the reason Netanyahu set aside his plan to apply Israeli law to the Jordan Valley and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is because Mendelblit and his fellow lawyers argued that implementing those policies would increase the likelihood that Bensouda would prosecute Israel.
If this is what happened, then it is now clear that Mendelblit and his associates misled Netanyahu. Bensouda didn’t need an excuse to prosecute Israel for nothing. So Israel should ignore her and act in its own interests. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Naftali Bennett need to order Khan al-Ahmar’s immediate evacuation. And within a week the government should pass a decision to apply Israeli law to all Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley.
Israel’s legal system is responsible for defending Israel in foreign courts and international legal bodies. It is incompetent to defend the country from political onslaughts by hostile political bodies. The ICC’s anti-Semitic decision, which seeks to criminalize Zionism and the State of Israel demonstrates that it is a hostile political institution.
Israel’s political leaders made a grave mistake in heeding the counsel of our power-hungry jurists. Now that we know the truth, they must clear the decks and let political warriors fight the political war the ICC is waging against the country and its citizens. JerusalemCats Comments: Israel needs to do what the rest of the World does: Put the fear of God into the Judges. Since this is Lawfare, act like Warfare and “Start Targeted Killing” of the ICC members and employees. If Israel can use it on Hamas why not the other “Terrorist of the ICC”? |
||
Australia Slams ICC Over Probe Against IsraelPosted by Vijeta Uniyal 26December2019 https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/12/australia-slams-icc-over-probe-against-israel/ “Australia is concerned by the ICC prosecutor’s proposal to consider the situation in the Palestinian Territories, subject to a ruling by the court’s pre-trial chamber on the scope of the court’s territorial jurisdiction in the matter.”
 Australia has blasted the International Criminal Court (ICC) for launching an investigation against Israel. Australia has blasted the International Criminal Court (ICC) for launching an investigation against Israel. Rejecting the decision by the Hague-based tribunal to target the Jewish State over alleged ‘war crimes,’ Australia’s Foreign Ministry questioned the legitimacy of the ICC probe against Israel. “Australia’s position is clear — we do not recognize a so-called ‘State of Palestine’ and we do not recognize that there is such a State Party to the ICC’s Rome Statute,”said the ministry’s spokesperson. The Times of Israel news website reported the official Australian response:
Without specifying the nature of alleged crimes, the ICC chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, announced the tribunal’s decision to investigate Israel. She was “satisfied” that “war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.” Bensouda declared in a statement on Friday. Palestinian terrorist groups, Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), welcomed the investigation and the ICC for targeting Israel. The PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority signed the Rome Statute four year ago, a treaty which legitimizes authority of the ICC. International and Palestinian activist groups, many of them linked to terrorist groups and funded by the EU and European countries, had been lobbying the ICC to implicate Israel in supposed ‘war crimes.’ The United States and Israel have not signed the treaty and thus do not fall under the jurisdiction of the court. The U.S. was among the first countries to back Israel over the issue. “We firmly oppose this and any other action that seeks to target Israel unfairly,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said. Germany, though muted in its response, warned against the “politicization” of the ICC probe. “Basically, it applies to us that we naturally resist the fact that cases of any kind are used to politicize before the court. We are betting that admissibility will be checked and that the court will do it on the basis of the Rome Statute,” a spokesperson for Germany’s Foreign Ministry said. The Australian statement concurs with the criticism of the probe made by the Israeli government. The ICC “has no authority to adjudicate the matter. It has jurisdiction only in lawsuits presented by sovereign states, but there has never been a Palestinian state,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in response to the ICC’s announcement. Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett blasted the ICC on Wednesday, calling it a “breeding ground for Antisemitism.” Israel’s Representative to the UN Danny Danon called the campaign led Palestinian agitators at the ICC an act “diplomatic terrorism.” According to the research done by the watchdog group NGO Monitor, the ICC probe is a result of a concerted effort by groups linked to Palestinian terrorist groups. Israeli news channel i24News reported the findings of the Jerusalem-based watchdog group:
In recent years, Palestinian and left-wing groups have increasingly turned to lawfare, a legal campaign warfare to harm and delegitimize Israel. The ICC and its chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda have a history for employing lawfare tactics against the United States. In April, State Department revoked her visa due to her attempts to investigate U.S. troops in Afghanistan over alleged ‘war crimes.’ The U.S. announced its intentions of slapping sanctions on the ICC if the tribunal targeted the U.S. or its allies, including Israel. One of Israel’s leading legal authorities, Professor Avi Bell of the Bar Ilan University, urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to follow the U.S. example in combating the lawfare waged by some at the ICC. Writing in the Israel Hayom newspaper, he said:
Also writing for the Israel Hayom, the prominent Israeli columnist Caroline Glick noted: “The International Criminal Court is not a legal body. It is a political organization that is exceedingly hostile to Israel. To fight it, Israel needs to ditch its failed legal strategy and adopt and implement an aggressive plan to defeat the ICC on its own political terms.” Instead of countering ICC’s probe just by legal means, Glick urged the Israeli government to introduce legislation similar to the American Service Members’ Protection Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002. This act seeks “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party.” The law is popularly known as “the Hague Invasion Act.” It authorizes the U.S. President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court,” Glick wrote, quoting the congressional act. The NGO Monitor‘s research shows how terror-linked NGOs, funded by the EU and European governments, are deploying lawfare to tie Israel’s hands in its fight against Palestinian Islamist terror groups. Driven by these activist groups, the ICC has chosen to go after the Jewish State, the only democracy with a free and impartial judiciary in the Middle East. Since the Hague-based tribunal cannot indict the State of Israel, given its judicial limitations, it will most likely go after Israeli military personnel involved in combating terrorism. In the face of this cowardly two-pronged attack, Israel has every right to use all means available to protect these dedicated and courageous men and women in uniform. PM Netanyahu: ICC has “no jurisdiction” to probe against Israel. Statement by PM Netanyahu |
||
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon orders that any EU request relating to Judea, Samaria and Gaza be turned down because of its latest ban.
Boycotting the Boycotters: Israel fights back against European blacklist campaignby Breitbart Jerusalem 19 November 2015 http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2015/11/19/boycotting-boycotters-israel-fights-back-european-blacklist-campaign/ JERUSALEM – Israel has decided that it will not stand idly by in the face of the European Union’s decision to label all goods produced in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.It will take measures against 16 European countries that backed the initiative, likely damaging relations between Israel and the EU, Israeli website Ynet reported. Some of the 16 countries backing the labeling, including Italy and the Netherlands, have better relations with Israel than others, so measures against these countries will be less harsh than countries that have been more hostile towards Israel such as Ireland and Sweden. Steps include reexamining the EU’s role in the peace process and restricting meetings between EU ambassadors to lower tier government figures. Ambassadors from all 16 countries will receive official censure from Israel’s Foreign Ministry. “In addition, any foreign delegations seeking to visit the West Bank and Gaza will undergo a much stricter process for entry and may even be prevented from entering those areas entirely. Official representatives from said governments may be denied meetings with the prime minister or the president. “From now on we will be very measured in how we behave with these visitors,” a senior Israeli official said. “We will control the flow of [passage] and will not authorize things automatically.” Ynet further reported thatIsrael will be more stringent regarding which EU projects it allows in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, thereby diminishing the EU’s influence in those areas. “They lead many projects which need our support, but you can’t act against us and then expect that everything will continue as normal,” said the official. Finally, dialogue between the EU and Israel – especially on crucial topics like strategy, fighting terrorism, and handling immigration – will be reduced, postponed, or halted. “Whoever takes hostile measures against us will pay the price,” said the source. He was quick to add, however, that no measures will be taken if they harm Israel’s own interests. “We had to walk a tightrope between things we wanted to do so that they would get the message and not hurting ourselves.” Meanwhile, EU’s ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, persisted on Wednesday with his claim that the decision to label Israeli products does not mean Europe is boycotting Israel or the settlements. “I’ve been shocked to hear claims of anti-Semitism and historical comparisons or analogies to the persecution of Jews in Germany in the’30s and’ 40s,” Faaborg-Andersen said at the Jerusalem Post’s Diplomatic Conference in Jerusalem. “In my mind this is a distortion of history and belittlement of the crimes of the Nazis, and the memory of their victims.” “The European Union has been accused of a variety of sins, including today from this podium,” Faaborg-Andersen lamented. “Anti-Semitism, hypocrisy, immorality, rewarding terrorism, destroying Palestinian jobs. These allegations have been made by people coming from the highest echelons in this country.” Faaborg-Andersen also accused Israel of hypocrisy. “How is the stated commitment to a two-state solution compatible with continued building in settlements, including in many settlements beyond the separation barrier that would not be part of Israel in any peace agreement? “True, settlements are certainly not the only problem [in regard to peace] – but they are definitely a significant and crucial problem.” Earlier in the week, Breibart Jerusalem reported on Faaborg-Andersen’s contradictory explanation for the labeling. On the one hand he insisted Israel was not being singled out and the practice was part of a “uniformed standard” that applied to products from all over the world, but when he was presented with the fact that other disputed regions – of which there are over 200 globally – were not subject to the same labeling Faaborg-Andersen rationalized that those situations were different from Israel’s. |
||
 Elder of Ziyon logo http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/ David Collier’s Report on Amnesty International Reveals Its Toxicity and Hate (Judean Rose)December 25, 2019 Varda Meyers Epstein (Judean Rose) http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/12/david-colliers-report-on-amnesty.html …David Collier: We cannot overstate the impact of NGOs like Amnesty. They are the bridge between actions on the ground and International forums such as the UN, UNHRC and even the ICC. The NGOs are seen as legitimate and impartial “judges” and their findings carry real weight. None more so than Amnesty. If Amnesty is simply pushing raw anti-Israel propaganda as evidence during a UN hearing, they legitimise the UN’s own bias against Israel. In effect Amnesty acts as the glue which reinforces a global anti-Israel bias – if they played fair, things would look very different. …
Why do we care about Amnesty International’s bias? What is the impact of this organization?Terror-linked and boycott promoting NGOs behind potential ICC investigationDecember 24, 2019 https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/terror-linked-and-boycott-promoting-ngos-behind-potential-icc-investigation/
On December 20, 2019, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Fatou Bensouda announced that she intends to investigate alleged war crimes in the “State of Palestine.” This move is to a significant degree the product of consistent and heavy lobbying of the ICC for over a decade by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These include Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, and a number of groups with ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terror group, and funded by Europe. In some instances, the European funding to Palestinian NGOs was explicitly earmarked for their activities vis-à-vis the ICC. For instance, during the 2014 Gaza conflict, the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat – a joint funding mechanisms of the governments of Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark – distributed “emergency funding” to Palestinian NGOs to document “large scale violations of human rights and international humanitarian law – the majority against Palestinian civilians and civilian objects.” These organizations are not credible sources of information for the court. Their ties to the PFLP terror group, as well as their promotion of BDS and other anti-Israel activities, should be disqualifying for any independent and objective body. Addameer
Al-Dameer
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)
![Terror-linked and boycott promoting NGOs behind potential ICC investigation December 24, 2019 On December 20, 2019, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Fatou Bensouda announced that she intends to investigate alleged war crimes in the “State of Palestine.” This move is to a significant degree the product of consistent and heavy lobbying of the ICC for over a decade by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These include Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, and a number of groups with ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terror group, and funded by Europe. In some instances, the European funding to Palestinian NGOs was explicitly earmarked for their activities vis-à-vis the ICC. For instance, during the 2014 Gaza conflict, the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat – a joint funding mechanisms of the governments of Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark – distributed “emergency funding” to Palestinian NGOs to document “large scale violations of human rights and international humanitarian law – the majority against Palestinian civilians and civilian objects.” These organizations are not credible sources of information for the court. Their ties to the PFLP terror group, as well as their promotion of BDS and other anti-Israel activities, should be disqualifying for any independent and objective body. Addameer Addameer received 120,000 CHF from the Swiss government in 2018. According to the Swiss government contract, Addameer is expected to “follow up for the submission to the ICC, and to file a new report” (emphasis added). According to media reports, Khalida Jarrar – listed by Addameer as the vice chair of its board of directors until 2017 –reportedly played a leading role in the PA’s ascendency to the ICC. Jarrar has served several stints in Israeli prison for her role in the PFLP, including her conviction for calling to kidnap Israeli soldiers. She was re-arrested on October 31, 2019 on suspicions of “involvement in terror activity.” On December 18, 2019, the Israel Security Agency (Shabak) revealed that Jarrar has “emerged as the head of the PFLP in the West Bank“and [is]responsible for all the organization’s activities.” Concurrently, she served as a leading member of Addameer’s board of directors, through 2017. (emphasis added). According to Fatah, Addameer is an affiliate of the PFLP. Several of Addameer’s current and former employees, as well as lawyers that work for Addameer, are linked to the terror group. Addameer listed Samer Arbid as its accountant for several years on its website. According to Israeli security officials, on August 23, 2019, he commanded a PFLP terror cell that carried out a bombing against Israeli civilians, murdering 17-year old Rina Shnerb, and injuring her father and brother. According to the indictment, Arbid prepared and detonated the explosive device. According to Arabic-language media, and other sources, Arbid worked as the accountant of the PFLP-affiliated NGO Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC)1 at the time of his September 2019 arrest.2 Al-Dameer The organization received a 450,000 Euro grant from the EU for 2016-2019, and a 9 million CHF grant from the Swiss government for 2018-2019. In the Swiss government contract, Al-Dameer is required to “provide information and reports to the International Criminal Court on human rights violations committed by the IOF [Israeli Occupation Forces]” (emphasis added) (On file with NGO Monitor). Al-Dameer has organizational ties to the PFLP, as seen in their joint November 2018 workshop, addressing prisoners’ issues. Additionally, according to Palestinian sources, in recent years, Al-Dameer officials, employees and board members have taken part in public PFLP gatherings, including congratulating the terror group on the anniversary of its founding, and participating in a PFLP delegation in Gaza. Al-Dameer advances BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) in different forums and participated in campaigns targeting international firms such as G4S, and Veolia. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) PCHR received a 280,000 CHF grant from the Swiss government in 2018, a 340,000 Euro grant from the German government in 2017, and a 80,000 Euro grant from the Irish government in 2017. In the Swiss government contract, PCHR is required to “Conduct[ing] communications with the Office of the General Prosecutor of the ICC and other intn’l litigation mechanisms.” (emphasis added) (On file with NGO Monitor) According to the Washington Post, PCHR Director Raji Sourani served a three-year prison sentence from 1979-1982 due to his role in the PFLP. He has participated in public PFLP events, including in 2017. In 2014, the terror organization even held an evening in his honor, where members of the PFLP politburo presented him with an award. According to a December 27, 1985 Israeli media report, the deputy director of PCHR’s board, Jaber Wishah, served as “the head of the military wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Gaza.” He was sentenced to life in prison and spent 15 years in Israeli prison from 1985-1999, after being convicted of “holding a leading position in a terrorist organization of which he was a member, intentionally attempting to kill an Israeli Staff Sergeant in Gaza, configuring a bomb and planting a bomb, possession of fire arms and conspiring to commit murder.” In February 2017, as a member of the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), released a statement calling upon “the international community to abide by their international obligations” and “act immediately by imposing sanctions against Israel.” In July 2016, lobbied the British government to arrest former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for alleged war crimes committed during the 2009 Gaza conflict. Raji Sourani accepts award from the PFLP on February 16, 2014. From right to left: PCHR General Director Raji Sourani, PFLP Central Committee member Rabah Muhanna, and PFLP Central Committee member Mariam Abu Daqah (Source: Al Watan Voice, “The people honor the fighter Professor Raji Sourani in recognition of his role in transmitting the message of our people,” February 17, 2014: https://video.alwatanvoice.com/view/2014/02/17/496986.html Another photo of Sourani received the award. The banner reads “Recognizing the distinguished professor, Raji Sourani on receiving the Alternative Nobel Prize, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” (Source: PCHR, “PFLP honors Lawyer Raji Sourani for Winning ‘Alternative Noble Prize,’” February 20, 2014: https://pchrgaza.org/en/?p=858) Al-Haq Received EUR 300,000 from the EU for 2017-2020, EUR 1.19 million from Italy for 2018-2020, and NOK 2 million from Norway in 2018. Al-Haq General Director Shawan Jabarin is tied to the PFLP. As a result, his requests for Israeli exit visas have been denied on several occasions, and he has been denied entry by Jordan. In a series of court cases in 2007-2009, the Israeli High Court of Justice found Jabarin to be a senior PFLP activist (2007, 2008, 2009). Al-Haq is one of the leading Palestinian BDS actors, and has pressured the French government and French companies such as Orange, to cut ties with Israeli banks, companies and projects. Together with Al-Mezan, lobbied British authorities in 2009 to issue an arrest warrant for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In 2016, lobbied British authorities to issue and arrest warrant for former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini. Al-Mezan Al-Mezan received a 450,000 Euro grant from the EU for 2017-2020, and a 200,000 grant from the Dutch government in 2018. In the Dutch government funding contract, Al-Mezan is expected “to ensure that “information on IHRL [international human rights law] and IHL and violations in the oPt [occupied Palestinian territories] are disseminated locally and internationally.” Like PCHR, as a member of the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), released a statement calling upon “the international community to abide by their international obligations” and “act immediately by imposing sanctions against Israel.” In 2016, defined BDS activity as “peacefully pursu[ing] a human rights agenda based on an international law framework.” Held a 2016 event in the European Parliament, promoting the discriminatory UN “blacklist” of companies operating in Israel. Together with Al-Haq, lobbied British authorities in 2009 to issue an arrest warrant for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch (HRW) has also been a leading proponent of an ICC investigation targeting Israel. It has promoted this agenda by pushing the PA to ascend to the ICC, lobbying the ICC prosecutor, and publishing reports with spurious arguments alleging Israeli violations of international law. Under the leadership of Executive Director Ken Roth, Middle East head Sarah Leah Whitson, and Israel and Palestine Country Director Omar Shakir, HRW has launched campaigns that seek to harm Israeli banks and soccer clubs, and have targeted platforms promoting tourism. Amnesty International Amnesty has called for ICC investigations into Israel surrounding its conflicts with Gaza in both 2009 and 2014. Amnesty has long worked to advance BDS campaigns, including supporting BDS legislation in the US and in Ireland, as well as calling on governments to impose an arms embargo on Israel. Following the publication of its January 2019 report targeting tourism in Israel and the West Bank, Mayor of Frankfurt Uwe Becker stated, “Amnesty International is promoting ethnic cleansing…[and] walking in the footprints of the antisemitic BDS movement.” Footnotes According to Fatah, UAWC is a PFLP-affiliate. Additionally, a USAID-engaged audit also identifies UAWC as a PFLP-affiliate. According to photos posted on UAWC’s Facebook in March 2019, his attendance at UAWC’s 2018 annual assembly, and an October 3, 2019 Alaraby article.](http://www.jerusalemcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Sourani-award.jpg) Terror-linked and boycott promoting NGOs behind potential ICC investigation December 24, 2019 On December 20, 2019, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Fatou Bensouda announced that she intends to investigate alleged war crimes in the “State of Palestine.” This move is to a significant degree the product of consistent and heavy lobbying of the ICC for over a decade by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These include Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, and a number of groups with ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terror group, and funded by Europe. In some instances, the European funding to Palestinian NGOs was explicitly earmarked for their activities vis-à-vis the ICC. For instance, during the 2014 Gaza conflict, the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat – a joint funding mechanisms of the governments of Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark – distributed “emergency funding” to Palestinian NGOs to document “large scale violations of human rights and international humanitarian law – the majority against Palestinian civilians and civilian objects.” These organizations are not credible sources of information for the court. Their ties to the PFLP terror group, as well as their promotion of BDS and other anti-Israel activities, should be disqualifying for any independent and objective body. Addameer Addameer received 120,000 CHF from the Swiss government in 2018. According to the Swiss government contract, Addameer is expected to “follow up for the submission to the ICC, and to file a new report” (emphasis added). According to media reports, Khalida Jarrar – listed by Addameer as the vice chair of its board of directors until 2017 –reportedly played a leading role in the PA’s ascendency to the ICC. Jarrar has served several stints in Israeli prison for her role in the PFLP, including her conviction for calling to kidnap Israeli soldiers. She was re-arrested on October 31, 2019 on suspicions of “involvement in terror activity.” On December 18, 2019, the Israel Security Agency (Shabak) revealed that Jarrar has “emerged as the head of the PFLP in the West Bank“and [is]responsible for all the organization’s activities.” Concurrently, she served as a leading member of Addameer’s board of directors, through 2017. (emphasis added). According to Fatah, Addameer is an affiliate of the PFLP. Several of Addameer’s current and former employees, as well as lawyers that work for Addameer, are linked to the terror group. Addameer listed Samer Arbid as its accountant for several years on its website. According to Israeli security officials, on August 23, 2019, he commanded a PFLP terror cell that carried out a bombing against Israeli civilians, murdering 17-year old Rina Shnerb, and injuring her father and brother. According to the indictment, Arbid prepared and detonated the explosive device. According to Arabic-language media, and other sources, Arbid worked as the accountant of the PFLP-affiliated NGO Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC)1 at the time of his September 2019 arrest.2 Al-Dameer The organization received a 450,000 Euro grant from the EU for 2016-2019, and a 9 million CHF grant from the Swiss government for 2018-2019. In the Swiss government contract, Al-Dameer is required to “provide information and reports to the International Criminal Court on human rights violations committed by the IOF [Israeli Occupation Forces]” (emphasis added) (On file with NGO Monitor). Al-Dameer has organizational ties to the PFLP, as seen in their joint November 2018 workshop, addressing prisoners’ issues. Additionally, according to Palestinian sources, in recent years, Al-Dameer officials, employees and board members have taken part in public PFLP gatherings, including congratulating the terror group on the anniversary of its founding, and participating in a PFLP delegation in Gaza. Al-Dameer advances BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) in different forums and participated in campaigns targeting international firms such as G4S, and Veolia. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) PCHR received a 280,000 CHF grant from the Swiss government in 2018, a 340,000 Euro grant from the German government in 2017, and a 80,000 Euro grant from the Irish government in 2017. In the Swiss government contract, PCHR is required to “Conduct[ing] communications with the Office of the General Prosecutor of the ICC and other intn’l litigation mechanisms.” (emphasis added) (On file with NGO Monitor) According to the Washington Post, PCHR Director Raji Sourani served a three-year prison sentence from 1979-1982 due to his role in the PFLP. He has participated in public PFLP events, including in 2017. In 2014, the terror organization even held an evening in his honor, where members of the PFLP politburo presented him with an award. According to a December 27, 1985 Israeli media report, the deputy director of PCHR’s board, Jaber Wishah, served as “the head of the military wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Gaza.” He was sentenced to life in prison and spent 15 years in Israeli prison from 1985-1999, after being convicted of “holding a leading position in a terrorist organization of which he was a member, intentionally attempting to kill an Israeli Staff Sergeant in Gaza, configuring a bomb and planting a bomb, possession of fire arms and conspiring to commit murder.” In February 2017, as a member of the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), released a statement calling upon “the international community to abide by their international obligations” and “act immediately by imposing sanctions against Israel.” In July 2016, lobbied the British government to arrest former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for alleged war crimes committed during the 2009 Gaza conflict. Raji Sourani accepts award from the PFLP on February 16, 2014. From right to left: PCHR General Director Raji Sourani, PFLP Central Committee member Rabah Muhanna, and PFLP Central Committee member Mariam Abu Daqah (Source: Al Watan Voice, “The people honor the fighter Professor Raji Sourani in recognition of his role in transmitting the message of our people,” February 17, 2014: https://video.alwatanvoice.com/view/2014/02/17/496986.html Another photo of Sourani received the award. The banner reads “Recognizing the distinguished professor, Raji Sourani on receiving the Alternative Nobel Prize, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” (Source: PCHR, “PFLP honors Lawyer Raji Sourani for Winning ‘Alternative Noble Prize,’” February 20, 2014: https://pchrgaza.org/en/?p=858) Al-Haq Received EUR 300,000 from the EU for 2017-2020, EUR 1.19 million from Italy for 2018-2020, and NOK 2 million from Norway in 2018. Al-Haq General Director Shawan Jabarin is tied to the PFLP. As a result, his requests for Israeli exit visas have been denied on several occasions, and he has been denied entry by Jordan. In a series of court cases in 2007-2009, the Israeli High Court of Justice found Jabarin to be a senior PFLP activist (2007, 2008, 2009). Al-Haq is one of the leading Palestinian BDS actors, and has pressured the French government and French companies such as Orange, to cut ties with Israeli banks, companies and projects. Together with Al-Mezan, lobbied British authorities in 2009 to issue an arrest warrant for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In 2016, lobbied British authorities to issue and arrest warrant for former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini. Al-Mezan Al-Mezan received a 450,000 Euro grant from the EU for 2017-2020, and a 200,000 grant from the Dutch government in 2018. In the Dutch government funding contract, Al-Mezan is expected “to ensure that “information on IHRL [international human rights law] and IHL and violations in the oPt [occupied Palestinian territories] are disseminated locally and internationally.” Like PCHR, as a member of the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), released a statement calling upon “the international community to abide by their international obligations” and “act immediately by imposing sanctions against Israel.” In 2016, defined BDS activity as “peacefully pursu[ing] a human rights agenda based on an international law framework.” Held a 2016 event in the European Parliament, promoting the discriminatory UN “blacklist” of companies operating in Israel. Together with Al-Haq, lobbied British authorities in 2009 to issue an arrest warrant for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch (HRW) has also been a leading proponent of an ICC investigation targeting Israel. It has promoted this agenda by pushing the PA to ascend to the ICC, lobbying the ICC prosecutor, and publishing reports with spurious arguments alleging Israeli violations of international law. Under the leadership of Executive Director Ken Roth, Middle East head Sarah Leah Whitson, and Israel and Palestine Country Director Omar Shakir, HRW has launched campaigns that seek to harm Israeli banks and soccer clubs, and have targeted platforms promoting tourism. Amnesty International Amnesty has called for ICC investigations into Israel surrounding its conflicts with Gaza in both 2009 and 2014. Amnesty has long worked to advance BDS campaigns, including supporting BDS legislation in the US and in Ireland, as well as calling on governments to impose an arms embargo on Israel. Following the publication of its January 2019 report targeting tourism in Israel and the West Bank, Mayor of Frankfurt Uwe Becker stated, “Amnesty International is promoting ethnic cleansing…[and] walking in the footprints of the antisemitic BDS movement.” Footnotes According to Fatah, UAWC is a PFLP-affiliate. Additionally, a USAID-engaged audit also identifies UAWC as a PFLP-affiliate. According to photos posted on UAWC’s Facebook in March 2019, his attendance at UAWC’s 2018 annual assembly, and an October 3, 2019 Alaraby article. Raji Sourani accepts award from the PFLP on February 16, 2014. From right to left: PCHR General Director Raji Sourani, PFLP Central Committee member Rabah Muhanna, and PFLP Central Committee member Mariam Abu Daqah  Another photo of Sourani received the award
Another photo of Sourani received the award. The banner reads “Recognizing the distinguished professor, Raji Sourani on receiving the Alternative Nobel Prize, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” Al-Haq
Al-Mezan
Human Rights WatchHuman Rights Watch (HRW) has also been a leading proponent of an ICC investigation targeting Israel. It has promoted this agenda by pushing the PA to ascend to the ICC, lobbying the ICC prosecutor, and publishing reports with spurious arguments alleging Israeli violations of international law. Under the leadership of Executive Director Ken Roth, Middle East head Sarah Leah Whitson, and Israel and Palestine Country Director Omar Shakir, HRW has launched campaigns that seek to harm Israeli banks and soccer clubs, and have targeted platforms promoting tourism. Amnesty InternationalAmnesty has called for ICC investigations into Israel surrounding its conflicts with Gaza in both 2009 and 2014. Amnesty has long worked to advance BDS campaigns, including supporting BDS legislation in the US and in Ireland, as well as calling on governments to impose an arms embargo on Israel. Following the publication of its January 2019 report targeting tourism in Israel and the West Bank, Mayor of Frankfurt Uwe Becker stated, “Amnesty International is promoting ethnic cleansing…[and] walking in the footprints of the antisemitic BDS movement.” Footnotes
|
||
