Dishonest. Benghazi spin is just the surface. Weapons and public relations going to terrorists. What is really going on is hostility. America and Israel are at each other’s throats. This is a cold war.
(h/t israpundit) Prosecutor’s Office rejects jurisdiction of “Palestine,” and echoes NGO Monitor’s legal brief
JERUSALEM – In a key defeat for NGO “lawfare” in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) today decided that it does not have jurisdiction to begin an investigation over cases related to the 2008-09 Gaza War because “Palestine” is not a state. In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority (PA) filed a letter with the Court, purporting to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction in order to bring war crimes cases against Israeli officials, notes Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, which was involved in the case from the outset.
“Throughout this process, the ICC – created to punish the worst perpetrators of war crimes and mass murder – was exploited by several EU- and European-government funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which intensively lobbied the OTP as part of their campaign to attack the legitimacy of the State of Israel,” says Anne Herzberg, legal advisor for NGO Monitor. “The NGOs Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Al Haq, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l´Homme (FIDH), and Adalah campaigned at the ICC in support of the Palestinian Authority’s political goals. This clearly was contradictory to the spirit and substance of peace negotiations.”
On behalf of NGO Monitor, Herzberg submitted a legal brief on the case. The brief argued that the ICC’s jurisdiction is defined by the 1998 Rome Statute, which makes clear that only states can accept the Court’s jurisdiction. The Statute was adopted after years of careful diplomatic negotiations, and allowing the PA to fall under the Court’s jurisdiction would have essentially amounted to a re-writing of the Statute. In addition, the brief argued that, contrary to claims by NGO proponents of the PA initiative, the ICC was not established as a court of universal jurisdiction, and NGO attempts to transform it into such would be legally improper. The OTP used similar arguments to support its decision.
“The fact that the case even proceeded this far was clear legal overreaching, but it shows the strength of NGOs that lead the de-legitimization and demonization campaigns against Israel,” adds Herzberg. “The OTP’s decision today is a strong rebuke to these NGOs, their political agenda, and their campaign to isolate Israel from the international community,” notes Herzberg. “International arenas are routinely hijacked for political purposes, but today’s decision was markedly different.”
it should of never come down to a technicality like this. Jews have a right to protect themselves even if it were a state. Shortly it will be the Muslim Brotherhood running things in Egypt. If Israel defends it’s civilians from rocket fire it is their right to do so. Technically speaking… the rules of this court are obscene. During the Holocaust the Jews did not have a state. Is the court saying that this technicality could of been used to protect Nazis if the legal precedent of today existed during World War II? It’s a little obtuse. People that initiate violence through terror… should be responded to as Israel did, regardless of the civilians they hide behind.
Israeli and Palestinian peace activists who planned to hold a conference in Jerusalem and Bethlehem this week were forced to cancel the event after receiving threats from Palestinians.
The conference was organized by the Israeli Palestinian Confederation, a group that seeks to promote peace and coexistence between the two peoples.
The organizers of the conference were hoping to hold elections for a new “parliament” that would consist of Israelis and Palestinians and that would offer itself as a third government to the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.
The first conference, which was supposed to take place at the Ambassador Hotel in Jerusalem, was cancelled at the last minute after angry Palestinian protesters demonstrated in front of the hotel. The protesters shouted slogans denouncing the event “because it promotes the culture of peace” and is designed to “normalize” relations between Israelis and Palestinians.
The demonstrators also shouted slogans strongly condemning Al Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh, who was supposed to be one of the main speakers at the conference. Because of the protest and out of fear for his safety, Nusseibeh decided not to come to the hotel.
The Palestinian protesters later stormed the conference hall, forcing the frightened Israeli representatives to leave the hotel.
The following day, a similar “anti-normalization” demonstration forced the Israeli and Palestinian peace activists to cancel an event that was scheduled to take place in the town of Bet Jalla near Bethlehem.
The protesters later explained that their move was in line with the Palestinian Authority’s policy of banning any form of normalization with Israel. This is the same authority that signed the Oslo Accords with Israel and whose senior leaders carry Israeli-issued VIP cards that enable them to move around freely – a privilege denied to most ordinary Palestinians.
Some Palestinians said that the demonstrations were in fact initiated by top Palestinian officials in Ramallah who do not want to see Israeli and Palestinian representatives working together to promote peace and coexistence.
By banning such public gatherings, the Palestinian Authority leadership is further radicalizing Palestinians.
This was not the first time that the Palestinian Authority or some NGOs had come out against activities that supposedly promote normalization between Israelis and Palestinians. Over the past few years, they have cancelled many events of this type under the charge that it is forbidden to normalize relations with Israel.
The Palestinian Authority and these NGOs are also coordinating their activities with other “anti-normalization” groups in the Arab world, specifically Jordan and Egypt.
At the end of the day, it is such activities that drive Arabs into the open arms of Muslim fundamentalists. The “anti-normalization” campaign also serves to undermine the minority of moderate Arabs who still believe in coexistence and peace.
The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank is shooting itself in the foot. In the future, its representatives will be afraid to return to the negotiating table or conduct dialogue with any Israel out of fear for their lives. If Palestinian academics such as Nusseibeh are afraid to appear in public with Israelis such as Uri Avineri, Ruth Dayan and Shlomo Ben-Ami, this speaks volumes about where Palestinian society is headed.
(NGO Monitor) JERUSALEM – While welcoming the agreement to release kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as an important humanitarian act, Professor Gerald M. Steinberg, president of human rights watchdog NGO Monitor, noted that this episode further exposes the moral bankruptcy of international human rights mechanisms.
“Throughout the five years of Shalit’s captivity in Gaza, during which every human rights obligation was blatantly violated, organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), Gisha, and the International Red Cross demonstrated very little interest,” Steinberg stated. “Similarly, the report of the UN Fact-Finding Commission on the Gaza War, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, downplayed Shalit’s captivity in blatant violation of international law. This moral stain will never be erased.”
In addition, NGO Monitor noted that the agreement to release hundreds of terrorists, responsible for heinous crimes, and tried and convicted according to due process of law, highlights the continued erosion of international legal principles. Instead of serving their time for these convictions, the murderers have been freed under extreme duress and compulsion, adding to the incentives for similar actions in the future. Organizations dedicated to human rights have an obligation to condemn such immoral extortion.
Gilad Shalit. It was worth it! 1000 terrorists that Israelis humanely have to pay for versus one hostage that the NGO community was ignoring and was abused is completely worth it. further it allows the Israelis to now shoot those they had to care for before. There is no loss here. Had Bibi waited a month there would of been no Egypt as we know it to negotiate with. It is a hard pill to swallow, but think of the outrageous torture Gilad would of endured that Amnesty International and the Red Cross would of ignored. it’s another example of how comparing the numbers is irrelevant. If we were to compare numbers there would be no Israel at all. We can only compare numbers when we make the assumption that the enemy captives are treated like Israeli captives. This would be a prime example of denying the correlative.
- In July 2011, New Israel Fund (NIF) published its 2010 Financial Statement. This document details NIF funding for Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) in 2010, and indicates that funds were also earmarked for 2011. (CWP is a leader of anti-Israel BDS campaigns.)
- The statement reveals that in 2010, NIF authorized an additional $20,130 for CWP, and disbursed $36,503, including $16,373 authorized in previous years that had not been transferred. (NGO Monitor reports show that NIF provided approximately $300,000 to CWP in previous years.)
- On May 12, 2011, an official NIF statement declared that “NIF provided its last direct grant to CWP in 2008” and subsequent transfers were “donor advised.” NIF’s financial statements do not distinguish between direct and donor advised grants, making NIF’s claim unverifiable. Nevertheless, under U.S. tax law, and as reflected in NIF’s 2009 and 2010 financial documents, “donor advised” grants are within the sole discretion of the NIF Board of Directors. No money may be distributed to any grantee without the approval of the NIF board, and donors are notified in advance that disbursements require that approval. NIF has full responsibility – morally, legally, and financially – for the 2010 $36,503 disbursement to CWP.
- NIF’s May 12, 2011 press release was headlined: “NGO Monitor attacks New Israel Fund based on information it knew to be wrong.” NIF’s release of its 2010 funding information unequivocally reaffirms the accuracy of NGO Monitor’s reports. (NIF has not apologized.)
- In a May 20, 2011 statement, NIF-Australia head Robin Margo declared that CWP “has received no further funding from NIF since 2009” and criticized Dr. Ron Weiser (Zionist Council of New South Wales, Australia) for “suggesting publically… that funding may have continued into 2010.”
- According to the NIF financial statement, $6,000 remained to be granted to CWP in 2011. This is consistent with CWP’s statement that NIF continued to provide funds in 2011. (NIF later claimed that “Due to a clerical error, $100 was processed to CWP in May.” NIF did not relate to the $6,000 amount.)