Doc's Talk: Double Standards: HRW/Amnesty/Christian Aid Statements on the Conflict between Fatah-al-Islam and the Lebanese Army

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Double Standards: HRW/Amnesty/Christian Aid Statements on the Conflict between Fatah-al-Islam and the Lebanese Army

NGO Monitor

Summary: NGOs have largely remained silent regarding the intense fighting between the Lebanese Army and the Palestinian terror faction Fatah al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon. This silence stands in sharp contrast to the frequent condemnation of Israeli anti-terror operations, such as in Jenin during the IDF's Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. This report will examine the responses of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Christian Aid (UK) to the fighting in Northern Lebanon and compare these with statements regarding Israel in the case of Jenin. [1] Background
Fighting Between Palestinian Terror Faction Fatah al-Islam and the Lebanese Army in the Nahr al-Bared Refugee Camp

Fatah al-Islam, a Palestinian group linked to al Qaeda, was founded late 2006 and has been involved in destabilizing Lebanon. According to the Lebanese government, the group carried out a bombing attack on commuter buses outside Beirut on February 13. Violent clashes between the group and the Lebanese army erupted in the Nahr al Bared refugee camp on May 20, 2007, after police entered the camp searching for Fatah al-Islam members wanted in a bank robbery. Gunfights ensued and the military was called in as the fighting escalated. To combat the Palestinian terrorists ensconced in the refugee camp, the Lebanese army has relied mainly on tank and artillery fire. Despite the high numbers of casualties [2] and the combat tactics used by the Lebanese Army, no HRW, Amnesty, or CA statement has accused the Lebanese army of committing a “massacre” or “war crimes." In addition, although the Lebanese Army in Nahr al Bared has restricted outsiders from entering the camp, this development has been given little attention. As will be shown below, these factors are very similar to conditions during the 2002 fighting in Jenin, but the responses of the NGOs were entirely different, demonstrating the double standards in their activities.

Background to the IDF's Operation Defensive Shield
Prior to and during the spring of 2002, Palestinian terrorist groups carried out numerous acts of terror, that killed over 130 Israeli civilians and wounded hundreds.[3] These attacks culminated in the suicide bombing at a Passover Seder in a Netanya hotel on March 27, killing 30 people and injuring 140. In the previous eighteen months, terrorists from Jenin were responsible for 93 Israeli deaths and wounding 640. In response, on March 29, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in order to root out the terror network existing in the Palestinian Authority. As opposed to the Lebanese army in Nahr al-Bared, the IDF decided to use hand-to-hand combat exclusively in order to reduce civilian casualties. Still, because the Palestinian terrorists were hiding in closed, booby-trapped, civilian quarters, there were some casualties. Estimates differ, but the highest fact-based estimates record [4] that 56 Palestinians were killed in Jenin, a majority of whom were combatants.
At the time of the operation, many NGO and UN officials repeated Palestinian claims that accused Israel of committing a “massacre” of hundreds of Palestinian civilians. These officials also condemned the IDF for imposing restrictions on outsiders from entering the camp.

Comparison of NGO Statements regarding Clashes in Nahr al Bared and Jenin:
Human Rights Watch

Reporting on Clashes in Nahr al Bared
Content: HRW issued a single statement in the first three weeks of fighting in Nahr al Bared. This statement, published on May 23, 2007, contains a general description of the fighting and a large amount of background information regarding the start of the conflict and Fatah al-Islam, including the group's affiliation with Fatah. HRW does not mention Fatah al-Islam's alleged connections to al-Qaeda. On June 13, 2007, HRW issued a second statement on the fighing, which centers on Palestinian claims of prisoner abuse.
Claims: HRW's first statement on the clashes accuses the Lebanese army of "indiscriminate shelling", while also declaring unequivocally that "Fatah al-Islam militants must not hide among civilians." HRW's second statement charges the Lebanese Army with "arbitrarily" detaining Palestinian civilians and "resorting to physical abuse." This latter statement also discusses the high civilian toll, [5] but it does not accuse either side of war crimes or violations of international law. As of June 13, 2007, HRW has made no mention of the Lebanese Army's restrictions placed on outsiders from entering the camp.
The Contrast: Reporting on Operation Defensive Shield
Content: In contrast to the organization's disinterested and balanced reporting on the clashes in Nahr al Bared, HRW focused much more on the IDF military response in Jenin than on Palestinian acts of terror. For example, HRW publications on the operation included two major reports condemning IDF actions, and none on Palestinian terror.[6]
Claims: HRW charged Israel with "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" attacks in the Jenin refugee camp, also claiming that Israel committed “willful killings” and “summary executions” and “war crimes”. In addition, as opposed to its silence regarding the Lebanese Army's entrance restrictions on Nahr al Bared, HRW issued several statements – one on April 3, 2002, and one on April 15, 2002 – largely devoted to condemning the IDF for restricting access to the camp.
Ignoring the many terrorist hide-outs within Jenin, HRW declared that the Hawashin district of Jenin,[7] endured "destruction extended well beyond any conceivable purpose of gaining access to fighters," a characterization HRW was not qualified to make. Although this description did not include allegations that the IDF carried out a “massacre”, it did contribute to international efforts to condemn Israel and minimized Israel’s right to root out terrorist infrastructure. Indeed, HRW based its conclusions on non-credible allegations from Palestinians who claimed to be Jenin residents and who may have been attempting to promote condemnations of the IDF.[8]

Amnesty International

Reporting on Clashes in Nahr al Bared
Content: AI has issued two statements on the clashes. The first AI statement, issued on May 23, 2007, is a normative analysis of the issues and the obligations of both sides. It includes no citations of either side for “war crimes” or “violations of international law”. The second statement, (June 5), contains more discussion of events than the first statement, as well as a mostly theoretical legal discussion, and again no condemnations for "war crimes" or "violations of international law."
Claims: The single legal point in AI's June 5 statement is phrased in ambiguous and diplomatic terms: "The camp has been subject to prolonged and intense artillery shelling – which appears at times to have been indiscriminate." In its second statement, AI declares that "International humanitarian agencies should be permitted to assist those remaining in the camp and to aid those wishing to leave," but does not charge either side with restrictive action.
The Contrast: Reporting on Operation Defensive Shield
Content: A large majority of AI resources were devoted to condemning the Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism, rather than the terror itself. For example, AI's major report on the fighting in Jenin focused on the IDF's "war crimes".
Claims: AI statements which exploited international legal and human rights terminology had a major impact on international opinion and politics. Amnesty declared that Israel committed “war crimes” and executed “unlawful killings” in Jenin and Nablus. During the opening stages of the operation, AI official Derrick Pounder was quoted by the BBC immediately following the operation in Jenin, saying that the signs pointed to a "massacre." [9] And although AI later admitted that no massacre had taken place, this statement is still used by other NGOs and government and UN officials to demonize Israel. In stark contrast to its silence regarding the Lebanese Army's restrictive actions in Nahr al Bared, AI condemned Israel for preventing international media and humanitarian agencies from entering the Jenin camp, claiming that the IDF wanted to “avoid scrutiny.”

Christian Aid (UK)

Reporting on Clashes in Nahr al Bared
Content: Christian Aid has issued two statements on the fighting. The first statement, issued on May 23, includes some background to the clashes, discussion of CA's relief efforts, and anecdotes of casualties. The second statement, issued on May 25, describes the organization's aid efforts on behalf of civilians in the refugee camp.
Claims: Christian Aid has made no significant legal claims regarding the actions of either the Lebanese Army or Fatah al-Islam, although it did report that the Lebanese army was "bombarding positions in Nahr al Bared" in the second statement. [10]

The Contrast: Reporting on Operation Defensive Shield
Content: CA reporting on the anti-terror operation focused entirely on Israeli actions, completely ignoring the Palestinian acts of terror that led to the operation. The organization's publications contained mostly sensationalist and anecdotal stories about victims intended to promote CA's clear political agenda. For example, the first paragraph of CA’s April 19, 2002 statement included a story about the shortage of space in the morgue in Nablus. Along with CA’s April 16 statement, these publications were based on information gathered from discredited NGOs such as B’tselem, Hamoked and Physicians for Human Rights. Unlike its minimal reporting on Nahr al Bared, CA also released several videos [11] that criticize Israel and remove the context of terror and ignore the dense fighting conditions in Jenin. The lone statement that contained any significant discussion of international law was an April 3 letter to the EU from Palestinian political leaders and discredited Palestinian NGOs partnered with CA, such as PCHR and LAW. The letter calls on the EU for "immediate and urgent protection for Palestinian civilians," and completely ignores the context of Palestinian terror.
Claims: These statements and videos charged Israel with "war crimes” and other human rights violations. Adopting an extreme, anti-Israel stance, the EU letter demanded the enactment of "sanctions on Israel, including the suspension of the Euro-Israel Association agreement, and to pressure other states to do so as well."

Conclusion
NGO Monitor's analysis has shown that HRW, AI, and Christian Aid have not reported on the fighting in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp to anywhere approaching the extent that they reported on the fighting in Jenin. Although they present a balanced view of the recent fighting – HRW legitimized the claims made by the Lebanese that Fatah al-Islam has been using human shields – they presented a one-sided, anti-Israel narrative of Operation Defensive Shield. These clear differences between reporting on the fighting in Nahr al-Bared and their reporting on the 2006 Lebanon War and Operation Defensive Shield highlights the continued tendency of these NGOs to single out Israel for condemnation, and thereby continue to implement the Durban Strategy.

Endnotes:

1. Operation Defensive shield was carried out inter alia, in Bethlehem, Nablus, as well as Jenin. This report, however, will focus mainly on NGO responses to IDF operation in Jenin as the location where most NGO reporting was centered.

2. As of June 11, 2007, 130 people have already been killed in the fighting, including 57 Lebanese soldiers, 42 Fatah al-Islam fighters, and 31 civilians.

3. See the Israeli Foreign Ministry website for a complete list of bombing attacks against Israeli civilians since the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993. The list includes statistics of civilian casualties.

4. The report will discuss the myth of the Jenin massacre as part of the description and analysis of the HRW/AI/CA response to the operation..

5. According to HRW, 60 Lebanese soldiers and at least 20 civilians were killed as of June 13, 2007.

6. It is important to note that although HRW's June 13 statement records testimony that includes claims of abuse, it also includes testimony from prisoners confirming they were not abused. This balanced documentation and reporting stands in contrast to the one-sided allegations of torture repeatedly made by HRW against the IDF. See, for example, the organization's July 19, 2001 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and its June, 1994 report entitled. "Torture and Ill-Treatment: Israel's Interrogation of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories." See also NGO Monitor's May 6, 2007 report summarizing the Israeli foreign ministry's detailed response (Hebrew, English) to B'Tselem and Hamoked's non-credible report alleging continued IDF torture of security detainees.

7. It was in the Hawashin district that the alleged “massacre” took place, according to premature AI reports,

8. It is important to note that since AI and HRW criticized Israel for using Palestinians as human shields in Jenin, the Israeli Supreme Court has outlawed the practice, and this ruling is still enforced in the IDF.

9. These premature judgments are characteristic of the organization's continued pattern of using problematic research methodology. For more NGO Monitor analysis of AI publications, see here.

10. Significantly, CA's first statement concludes with a description of the situation of Palestinian refugees, who " remain some of the most disenfranchised, marginalized and poor communities in the region" after they "left their homes after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948." This conclusion serves to focus the blame for the Palestinian refugee crisis on Israel.

11. Videos were released, for example, on April 24, 2002, April 26, 2002, and April 30, 2002.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk