Updates

Update from AIJAC

June 6, 2011
Number 06/11 #02

This Update deals with the proposed additional flotilla to Gaza being organised – probably for later this month – by the same people who organised the Mavi Marmara flotilla last year. It further includes some material on the way various non-governmental organisations (NGOs), often with support from Western governments, are making a two-state Israeli-Palestinian peace more difficult, including by prompting efforts like these flotillas. 

First up is British columnist Melanie Phillips, who points out that the latest flotilla effort is more nakedly than ever a propaganda stunt to attempt to make Israel look bad, with no conceivable humanitarian purpose, despite the claims of the organisers. She notes that it comes at about the same time that Gaza is about to open its second shopping mall. She also discusses a plan by flotilla organisers to attempt to organise masses of protesters flying into Ben Gurion airport to disrupt traffic and create a propaganda stunt. For all that she has to say, CLICK HERE. American columnist Claudia Rosett points out that if the flotilla organisers really cared about freedom, they’d be sailing to Syria, not Gaza. Plus, blogger Meryl Yourish collects evidence about the intentions of the organisers.

Next up is a legal argument about the flotillas from noted international law expert and former Israeli Ambassador to Canada Alan Baker. It combines legal argument with some basic facts – including that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, that this is especially true after Egypt opened the Rafah crossing, that there is no problem sending humanitarian supplies to Gaza without staging such stunts, that Hamas controls Gaza and is in a state of hostilities with Israel, etc. Legally, he notes, Israel is totally within its rights to enforce its blockade of Gaza and, moreover, has the right to use force to do so if necessary. For a full look at the legal and moral realities of the flotilla situation, CLICK HERE. Some more facts everyone should know about the flotilla and the claims made by the organisers are collected here, complete with sources. Excellent details on the organisers of the flotilla and their intentions are collected in this report.

Finally, Ben Dror Yemini, a senior writer with the Israeli daily Maariv, takes on the destructive role of NGOs in efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He points out some statistics illustrating how grossly disproportionate is the international focus on the plight of Palestinians, who are in many ways better off than a majority of the world’s inhabitants. But he especially focuses on how NGOs, mainly funded by European governments, are determined to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a struggle about competing national needs and claims into a question of Palestinian “rights”, which are then defined very elastically in a way which feeds, even demands, Palestinian rejectionism.  For this important article in full, CLICK HERE. Also, Italian columnist Giulio Meotti takes on Amnesty International’s biases and obsessions with respect to Israel.

Readers may also be interested in:

• Good reports and video on what actually happened on Sunday during clashes on the Israeli-Syrian border from the IDF and Israeli news sources here and here.
• Details on allegations from Syrian opposition sources that those involved in the clashes were paid US$1000 from the Syrian government to take part.  Plus, why those involved should be termed “invaders”, not “protestors”.
• Meanwhile, the same day as the clashes on Israel’s border, Syrian forces reportedly killed 31 of their own people. Things appear to have been worsening, in terms of the death toll, since.
• Some analysis from Israeli experts on how well the violence was handled by Israeli forces – here, here and here.
• Former Israeli general and politician Ephraim Sneh explains the problem with the Egyptian re-opening of the Rafah crossing into Gaza.
• Some good comments on the slaughter of its own people by the Syrian regime in the Washington Post and New York Times. Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence sources are now saying they do not expect the Assad regime to survive the current unrest.
• A Canadian newspaper reports on how an Israeli charity, called “Save a Child’s Heart,” is winning over even Palestinians. 
• Some additional commentary on responding to the Palestinian push for UN declared statehood here, here and here, while this report (scroll down) suggests the Palestinian leadership is not expecting much from their efforts.
• In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is locked in a power struggle with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. More on this struggle and where it may lead here, here and here. 
• Meanwhile, Iran is reportedly planning to cut off its internet from all links to the rest of the world.
• Noted academic Robert Wistrich and former Israeli diplomat Zvi Gabbay write about the significance of  the “Farhoud” – the massive pogrom in Iraq which was the beginning of the end for the very large and vibrant Baghdad Jewish community – which occurred 70 years ago this week. 
• Some good analysis of the significance of Turkey’s election next week – from the Economist and Israel expert Eytan Cohen Yanarocak (it’s a pdf).
• Good analysis of the developing situation in Yemen from Simon Henderson and Daniel Green of the Washington Institute, and Daniel Pipes.

The floating theatre of the jihad (part two)

Melanie Phillips

The Spectator,
Tuesday, 31st May 2011

 Two things are due to happen in Gaza in June.

The first is that a second shopping mall is due to open. According to Khaled abu Toameh, this will house a huge supermarket, clothes and gift shops, a large restaurant, a modern coffee shop, a cinema and entertainment sites for children. This complements the first mall that opened last year, as well as the gourmet restaurants that are already turning Gaza into a magnet for the discerning Arab foodie.

The second thing that is planned to happen is the arrival of another huge flotilla carrying ‘humanitarian supplies’ to relieve the, er, starvation and destitution in Gaza. Last time, the ‘humanitarian’ medical supplies on board the flotilla were revealed to be well past their use-by date. This time round, maybe the organisers want instead to establish a rival shopping experience – bringing in on their boats products under the ‘TerrorTrade’ designer label, perhaps, or ‘Jihadi Chic’? — to compete with the two mega-malls.

Absurd? Of course. But the point of this exercise is not to relieve want. It is merely to stage a propaganda stunt that makes Israel look bad in the eyes of a credulous and malevolent world.

Last time, the Turkish terrorist IHH which was in charge of the lead flotilla boat the Mavi Marmara tried to lynch an Israeli boarding party searching it for smuggled weapons and which opened fire in self-defence – promptly causing the post-rational west to blame Israel for ‘aggression’.

Galvanised by that triumph the IHH, which is playing a central role in organising next month’s flotilla, is planning to manipulate the obliging idiots of the west into an even greater paroxysm of hate against Israel by provoking it with a much bigger flotilla, for which entertainment it is reportedly already preparing the ground with a pre-emptive propaganda barrage.

But that’s not the half of it. Yesterday, Israeli TV ran an item which claimed the IHH was planning demonstrations at both European airports and Israel’s Ben Gurion airport by hundreds of European and American dupes and bigots en route to stage their ‘humanitarian’ mission to end starvation in Gaza (anyone told them yet that Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing point which until now has been closed?)

We can all imagine what might happen. Airports are places where security is necessarily tight and procedures accordingly rigid. Flotillistas who appear to be ordinary travellers may suddenly start creating a scene, purely in order to provoke the airport authorities into heavy-handed action which they will then exploit to scream ‘racism’, ‘war crimes’ and so forth. We can expect to see children deployed as human shields on the front-lines of the security scanners, as well as on the flotilla boats themselves. With a bit of luck, they will be hoping, some jittery police officer will shoot one of the flotillistas or better still, their children. By an amazing coincidence, their willing dupes in the western media will happen to be on hand to film it all. 

The flotilistas will present themselves as a peaceful, humanitarian mission being thwarted by the fascist Zionists and their lackeys. And their media toadies will duly deliver the script they are being fed. But it will all be a staged, cynical stunt to exploit and manipulate western credulity, ignorance and malice. Not only is it an elaborate plan to play the west for suckers, but it also threatens to put ordinary airline passengers at risk as security is thrown into chaos and airport officials diverted to deal with these disturbances.

What are western leaders doing to avert this? Wake up Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland. You are supplying the repertory company for this floating theatre of the jihad. What are the Israelis doing to outsmart this latest example of psychological warfare? Where is their own centralised psy-ops unit to take it on? Wake up, Mr Lieberman. Wake up, Mr Edelstein. Wake up, Mr Netanyahu. This is the war of the mind. Get onto the right battlefield, fast.

Back to Top
————————————————————————

The Gaza Flotillas to Come

Some Ground Rules before Setting Out

Alan Baker

Jerusalem Issue Brief 
Vol. 11, No. 3  
5 June 2011

• An ostensibly civilian, humanitarian flotilla was employed in May 2010 to demonstratively breach the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza coast. This flotilla was organized by the Turkish IHH, which has extensive links to extreme Islamic terror groups. Provoking a confrontation with Israel continues to be the primary aim.
• Since May 2010, the Israeli government has altered the manner in which it administers the limitations on the transfer of goods to Gaza. It now specifically prohibits only those materials that might be taken and directed by Hamas and other terror groups in furtherance of their hostile purposes.
• There is no humanitarian emergency among the civilian population in Gaza, and hence there can be no justification for conveying emergency shipments intended to alleviate an emergency that clearly does not exist. Any genuine wish to provide materials to the Gaza population can be directed through Israeli ports and the relevant authorities.
• Hamas routinely fires missiles randomly at Israeli civilian targets. Thus a situation of ongoing armed conflict exists between Hamas and Israel, which has the prerogative to institute a naval and land blockade to prevent the introduction of weapons and materials that could serve belligerent purposes. Such a blockade is well established in international law and practice.
• It is internationally accepted that any attempt to breach such a blockade may be prevented by Israeli naval patrols. Such a process may take place outside the area of the blockade if the declared intention of the flotilla is to violate the blockade. Furthermore, any vessel refusing to respond to the demands of the naval forces may be stopped forcefully.

Aiming to Provoke a Confrontation

Since the May 2010 wave of “flotillas” organized by Turkish and other groups, ostensibly conveying cargoes of vital and indispensible aid intended to reach the population of Gaza, much has been written and televised as to the real intentions of the organizers.  Additionally, several enquiries have been instituted in order to analyze the legal, military, and other aspects of the flotilla affair and the way it was handled.

What seems to have been made very clear by the groups that organized the flotilla, especially the Turkish-led IHH terror-related organization, is the fact that the use of an ostensibly civilian, humanitarian flotilla and a huge PR campaign in order to demonstratively breach the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza coast and thereby challenge Israel’s policy regarding the Gaza Strip and provoke a confrontation with Israel, was clearly and continues to be the primary aim.

Conveying humanitarian goods to what was represented as a distressed Gaza population was a minor, secondary, and perhaps even incidental aim, at least among the most vocal participants in the flotilla, although there were indeed some who participated out of a bona fide belief in the importance of identifying themselves with, and trying to alleviate what they genuinely thought to be, a humanitarian crisis among the residents of Gaza.

The regrettable outcome of the May 2010 flotilla and the extensive international echo that still reverberates throughout the international community have nevertheless brought about a series of changes in the “situation on the ground.”

The logic and aim of Israel’s blockade is to prevent the Hamas terror organization presently administering Gaza from acquiring arms, ammunition, and other supplies that could contribute to hostile activities against Israel. Since May 2010, the Israeli government has altered the manner in which it administers the limitations on the transfer of goods to Gaza. It now specifically prohibits only those materials that might be taken and directed by Hamas and other terror groups in furtherance of their hostile purposes.

Furthermore, since the May 2010 flotilla incident and in light of the considerable publicity that has been given to the daily flow of goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip, it has become very clear to all that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza and all essential and other provisions are available to all residents.

On the other hand, the practical military and tactical implications and lessons of the May 2010 flotilla have been learned by Israel’s military forces and the appropriate conclusions as to how to handle future flotillas have been reached and put into place.

Some Basic Facts

In light of these significant changes in the situation on the ground, one may wonder on what basis could future planned flotillas be justified and, in a similar vein, what might be the real intentions and motives of the organizers who are busy preparing the next flotilla touted for June 2011.

In this context, it might be pertinent to review some of the basic ground rules surrounding the flotilla phenomenon:

• It is widely acknowledged that there is no humanitarian emergency among the civilian population in Gaza. Hence there can be no justification for conveying emergency shipments intended to alleviate an emergency that clearly does not exist. Most materials and foodstuffs are permitted to enter Gaza after examination by the Israeli authorities in order to prevent tactical materials from reaching Hamas and other terror groups. Any genuine wish to provide materials to the Gaza population can be directed through Israeli ports and the relevant authorities.
• It is widely acknowledged that Gaza is independently administered by an internationally regarded terror organization – Hamas – that is sponsored and supplied with arms by Iran and that maintains an ongoing and actively hostile attitude towards Israel. The territory also serves as host to other terror groups such as the Islamic Jihad. Practically speaking, this hostility takes the form of incitement to terror through all levels of the population by all means of publicity – in kindergartens, schools, colleges, on the radio and television, and through the web. It involves the smuggling into the area and stockpiling of missiles, guns, and ammunition for use against Israel and its civilian population and the routine firing of such missiles randomly at Israeli civilian targets.
• It is widely acknowledged that Israel does not hold the status of an “occupying power” in Gaza. In fact, Israel transferred its civilian powers and responsibilities over the Gaza Strip into the hands of the Palestinian Authority and withdrew its forces and civilians. The Palestinian Authority’s control in Gaza was later usurped by Hamas, which turned the area into a base for mounting terror attacks against Israel.
• Since such a terror organization is in sole and effective control of Gaza and directs ongoing and active hostilities against Israel and its civilians, it is widely acknowledged that a situation of ongoing armed conflict exists between Hamas, its associates, and Israel. In such a situation of armed conflict, Israel has the prerogative to institute a naval and land blockade with a view to prevent the introduction of weapons and materials that could serve the belligerent purposes of Hamas. The institution of such a blockade is well established in international law and practice.
• It is internationally acknowledged that a naval blockade in such a situation, once instituted and maintained in accordance with the rules of international law with the appropriate public notification as to the area of sea that it covers, effective enforcement, impartiality and consideration of humanitarian needs of the population, is fully in accordance with accepted international law and practice.
• Similarly, it is internationally accepted that any attempt to breach such a blockade by civilian or other vessels may be prevented by Israeli naval patrols, and the vessels involved may be stopped, searched, and sent to an Israeli port in order to check their cargoes. Such a process may take place outside the area of the blockade if the declared intention of the flotilla is to violate the blockade. Furthermore, any vessel refusing to respond to the demands of the naval forces may be stopped forcefully.

In light of all the above, there is good reason to assume that the instigators of the planned flotilla intending to set sail for Gaza in June 2011 would be hard put to justify themselves other than by admitting their real character and motives as a provocative and political demonstration.

Sponsorship, organization, and presence on such flotillas by terror organizations or their activists disguised as humanitarian groups will no longer deceive an international community which witnessed the May 2010 flotilla, the premeditated violence of its organizers, and the regrettable and tragic outcome.

While such demonstrations may well take place if only for their PR value, they will have to abide by internationally accepted rules and prove their bona fide nature in order to be considered as genuine.

Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is former Legal Adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry and former Ambassador of Israel to Canada.

Back to Top
————————————————————————

NGOs vs. Israel

 by Ben-Dror Yemini

Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2011, pp. 67-71

On January 5, 2011, after months of heated public debate, the Israeli Knesset established a parliamentary committee of inquiry to probe foreign funding of Israeli nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) involved in the international Israel delegitimization campaign.[1] Was this a draconian, McCarthyist encroachment on the freedom of press as claimed by left-wing groups and politicians, or a legitimate attempt by a besieged democracy to fend off hostile intervention in its internal affairs as argued by the legislation’s proponents?

International Obsession

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has historically attracted extraordinary, and largely disproportionate, international attention. Not because of its ferocity: The number of Palestinians killed by Israelis (and vice versa) over the past six decades is probably smaller than the 9,000 Muslim Bosnians massacred in Srebrenica in July 1995 by their Serb and Croatian compatriots[2] and decidedly smaller than the death toll from other conflicts throughout the globe that range in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.[3]

Nor has this obsession been driven by humanitarian considerations. Not only is the Gaza Strip not in the throes of a deep crisis, but the humanitarian situation there is better than in some of the countries whose ships have been sent on occasion to break “the siege” of Gaza. Infant mortality in the Gaza Strip, for example, is 17.71 per thousand births compared to Turkey’s 24.84 or the global average of 44[4]; life expectancy in Turkey is 72.23 years whereas in Gaza it is 73.68, much higher than the global average of 66.12, not to mention such Arab or Islamic countries as Yemen (63.36), Sudan (52.52), or Somalia (50).[5] Even by more advanced indicators, such as personal computer use or Internet access, Gazans are in a much better position than many of the world’s inhabitants.[6] In the words of the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, no Israel-lover by any stretch of imagination, “an average Congolese citizen would probably have sold his mother into slavery to be able to move to the West Bank.”[7]

But whatever its underlying causes, the intense international meddling in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, whether by governments or by NGOs, has become a major obstacle to the peaceful resolution of this century-long feud.

Rights Defenders or Peace Averters?

The two-state solution—Israel plus a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital—has long been identified by the majority of the international community, or at least by the West, as the key to Arab-Israeli peace. In these circumstances, one would expect the international community to help remove the main obstacles between the two sides by allaying Israel’s security fears and by devising economic and demographic proposals for the resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. Yet an examination of the international intervention in the conflict reveals a highly disturbing pattern: The greater the intervention, the more both sides harden, not moderate, their positions. Rather than facilitating peace and reconciliation, the international funds invested in the conflict have produced an organizational and ideological infrastructure that inhibits the chances for a future agreement.

More specifically, the European Union as a whole and the European states individually finance a long list of associations dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that are part of a wider conglomerate seeking to perpetuate the conflict.[8] The political discourse has fundamentally changed, and this is no longer the era of peace organizations but rather that of human rights organizations, many of which are deeply involved in protecting Palestinian “rights.”

Granted, there are Palestinian rights that deserve support and protection. But there are just as many false claims for rights that are designed to harm Israel and prevent reconciliation rather than improve the Palestinian condition. Foremost among them is “the right of return”—the standard Arab and Palestinian euphemism for Israel’s destruction through demographic subversion. For example, in an internal meeting in March 2009, Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged that the repatriation of even one million Palestinian refugees “would mean the end of Israel.”[9] In fact, there is no such right. It does not exist; nor has it been recognized or implemented on the political level, virtually anywhere in the world, and certainly not as a tool to destroy an existing nation-state. Only last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against a Greek demand for a “right to return” to the Turkish part of Cyprus stating that there is no such absolute right.[10] But this does not prevent many groups from cultivating this destructive fantasy.

For argument’s sake, imagine that the international community convinces Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PA president Abbas to return to the negotiations table, and that news of an agreement leaks out. The broad contours of such an agreement would presumably be along the principles laid down by President Bill Clinton in December 2000 (about 95 percent of the West Bank given to the Palestinians with Israeli compensation in kind for annexed territories; Jerusalem partitioned on a demographic basis; no return of refugees to Israel with the problem solved by an international effort) or the not-so-different Ehud Olmert proposals at the 2007 Annapolis summit, most of which were apparently accepted by the Palestinian leadership in the ensuing negotiations.[11]

Would this breakthrough be welcomed by these NGOs? Hardly. A significant number of human rights groups will do precisely what they have been doing in previous years: They will conduct an international campaign against the agreement claiming it “fails to address the basic rights of the Palestinian people,” first and foremost, the “right of return.”

These groups are part of a new empire—an empire comprised of official, international bodies such as the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in Geneva, the U.N. General Assembly, and the many “human rights” groups that voice a similar position. The automatic majority bloc of nondemocratic states in international bodies is a sad testament to the state of the world community; the identification of human rights organizations with this dark majority is a tragedy for world human rights. There is little discussion of the lack of human rights in such brutal dictatorships as Syria or Libya; but there is a disproportionate focus on Israel by these bodies,[12] which in turn creates the false impression that Israel, and not such states as Sudan or Iran (or North Korea for that matter), is the foremost threat to world peace.

How has this come to pass? The West finances an extensive network of NGOs with funding often going to projects feigning defense of human rights. In reality, the absolute majority of these groups has a radical, political agenda, which at times is not only anti-Israel or anti-Zionist but also anti-West.[13] There are many in the West who hope that a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will help resolve the wider conflict between East and West. This is an illusion. The Afghan and Pakistani Taliban or al-Qaeda terrorists would have difficulty finding Israel on the map.

Rejectionist Network

The EU supports dozens of Israeli groups dealing with the conflict, but only a handful of these deal with the conflict’s political dimension, notably the Israeli group Peace Now and the Israeli-Palestinian Geneva Initiative, both of which support the two-state solution. By contrast, there are numerous groups that, while paying lip service to the two-state solution, reject Israel’s right to exist.

Consider the Israeli-Arab groups Adalah[14] and Mossawa[15]—both of which are openly opposed to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state—that is to its very existence—and support the “right of return.” Or consider the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, headed by Jeff Halper, who roams the world lambasting not only Israel but also “global capitalism.” He has gone so far as to deride the 2002 Saudi peace proposal as an attempt “to placate the Arab street” and to accuse Arab leaders of seeking Israel’s regional hegemony in order to tighten their grip over their oppressed masses.[16] Furthermore, the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions publicly supports the “right of return” and the total boycotting of Israel. Yet this radical group is financed by the EU to the tune of €169,661 (US$232,198, for the years 2010-12).[17]

On the Palestinian side, the Dutch government funds the militant website The Electronic Intifada,[18] whose cofounder Ali Abunimah considers PA president Abbas a “collaborator.” Not surprisingly, Abunimah is fiercely opposed to the peace process, subscribing instead to the “one state solution”[19]—the replacement of Israel by an Arab and Muslim state in which Jews would be reduced to a permanent minority as dhimmis, historically accorded a legally and socially inferior existence in Islam.

Likewise, the Ramallah-based Palestinian group al-Haq receives support from the Swedish, Dutch, and Canadian governments,[20] presumably to bolster its formal human rights agenda. Yet this organization is openly committed to the “right of return,”[21] as is the Ramallah-based, Palestinian-run NGO Development Center. Funded by the World Bank and a string of European states, including France, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, it disburses millions of dollars to Israeli and Palestinian associations, supposedly for the protection of human rights. But a glance at the list of the supported groups or their leaders readily reveals that most of them are also involved in political activism[22]—including promotion of the “right of return”—and many of them support the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.

This hydra-like BDS is supported by dozens of different organizations. The EU or individual Western states do not directly finance the movement, yet they fund numerous groups that subsidize and support it. What makes this matter particularly galling is that the ultimate goal of the BDS movement is not just the end of the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza, but rather Israel’s demise.[23] The leaders and members of the BDS movement travel around the world and speak on human rights, democracy, and equality. But behind this lip service to universal values underlie the same extremist objectives preached by al-Qaeda, the Iranian ayatollahs, or Hamas: rejection of the two-state solution and castigation of any Israeli-Palestinian cooperation or Palestinian concessions for the sake of peace, as collaboration with one of the world’s worst ever regimes. As one of the movement’s leaders, Omar Barghouti, candidly admitted: “The end of the occupation is not the end of our struggle.”[24] Paradoxically, Barghouti is a student at Tel Aviv University, the same university he wishes to have boycotted.
Conclusion

A vast and intricate network of NGOs, funded by the European Union and individual European states, is busy fanning Palestinian and Arab rejectionism, whether through the promotion of “the right of return,” support for the BDS campaign, or discouragement of acceptance of Israel.[25] Not all members of this network are in contact with one another, nor do they necessarily share the same specific goals. Yet they are unified by principled and ideological opposition to the two-state solution, and by implication—to Israel’s very existence. Should Israeli lawmakers be faulted for trying to resist this trend?

Ben-Dror Yemini is the opinion-editor of the Israeli daily Maariv.

[1] The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 5, 2011; BBC News, Jan. 19, 2011.
[2] The New York Times, Nov. 11, 2004.
[3] This has also applied to the wider conflict between Israel and the Arab states. See Gunnar Heinsohn and Daniel Pipes, “Arab-Israeli Fatalities Rank 49th,” FrontPage Magazine, Oct. 8, 2007.
[4] “Infant Mortality Rate,” The World Factbook 2011, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), McLean, Va., accessed Feb. 8, 2011.
[5] “Life Expectancy at Birth,” The World Factbook 2011, CIA, accessed Feb. 8, 2011.
[6] “Internet Users,” The World Factbook 2011, CIA, accessed Feb. 8, 2011.
[7] “Violence and Left in Dark Times: Bernard-Henri-Levy and Slavoj Žižek,” Intelligence2: The World of Debate, Sept. 16, 2008.
[8] Steven J. Rosen, “The Arab Lobby: The European Component,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2010, pp. 17-32.
[9] The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 24, 2011; see, also, Saeb Erekat, “The Returning Issue of Palestine’s Refugees,” The Guardian (London), Dec. 10, 2010.
[10] Demopoulos v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France, Mar. 1, 2010.
[11] Ha’aretz (Tel Aviv), Jan. 24, 2011.
[12] See, for instance, Bat Ye’or, “Delegitimizing the Jewish State,” Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2011, pp. 3-14. It was only on January 26, 2011, after Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi had been slaughtering his subjects in full view of the world for some time, that Libya was expelled from the U.N. Human Rights Council.
[13] Gerald M. Steinberg, “NGOs Make War on Israel,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2004, pp. 13-25.
[14] “Adalah,” NGO Monitor, Jerusalem, accessed Feb. 8, 2011.
[15] “About Mossawa,” Mossawa, Haifa, accessed Feb. 8, 2011.
[16] Jeff Halper, “A Just Street or Apartheid?” Counterpunch, May 3, 2007; YouTube, “Peace in the Middle East: Jeff Halper speaks at UCI, Part 3 of 8,” accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
[17] “Why BDS?” The Israeli Committee against House Demolition, Jerusalem, accessed Feb. 9, 2011; “Projects: Home Demolitions and the Law,” Delegation of the European Union to Israel, Ramat Gan, accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
[18] “Vragen en Antwoorden over Partnerorganisatie Electronic Intifada,” Interchurch Organisation for Development Cooperation (ICCO), Utrecht, Netherlands, accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
[19] Ali Abunimah, “Why Israel Won’t Survive,” The Electronic Intifada, Jan. 19, 2009; “One Country: A New Book from EI Cofounder Ali Abunimah,” The Electronic Intifada, accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
[20] “Donors for 2005/2006,” al-Haq, Ramallah, accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
[21] “A Joint Open Letter to the Member States of the UN General Assembly from Palestinian Human Rights Organizations,” al-Haq, Ramallah, Oct. 1, 2009.
[22] “Human Rights and Good Governance Secretariat (HR/GG) NGO Grant Recipients 2010-2012,” NGO Development Center, Ramallah and al-Rimal, Gaza, accessed Feb. 9, 2011; “Donors,” idem, accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
[23] “Palestinian United Call for BDS against Israel,” Palestinian BDS National Committee, July 9, 2005.
[24] “Boycott Divestment Sanction Israel,” YouTube, accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
[25] “Overview of European Governmental Funding for NGOs,” NGO Monitor, Jerusalem, June 10, 2010.

Back to Top