Doc's Talk: Hamas is supported by the Arab Organization for Human Rights branch in London against the Palestinian Authority

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Hamas is supported by the Arab Organization for Human Rights branch in London against the Palestinian Authority

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Overview

1. In May 2010 Amjad al-Salfiti, a lawyer with British citizenship who serves as head of the British branch of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), visited Judea and Samaria. He met with Dr. Mahmoud al-Ramahi, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a senior Hamas activist in Judea and Samaria. Speaking for Hamas, Al-Ramahi requested legal assistance against the Palestinian Authority for what he termed "persecution" of Hamas activists. 2. Hamas' use of the British lawyer and his human rights organization is one example of how it exploits anti-Israel organizations and activists operating in Britain, which is a hub of Hamas' political, propaganda and legal activity in Europe.1 Most of its routine activities are directed against Israel, including initiatives for boycotting Israel, smearing it in the media and trying its senior officials in court. However, on occasion it turns its activities against the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, with which Hamas currently has difficult, charged relations. Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniya recently called on the residents of Judea and Samaria to take to the streets and rebel against the PA, while Egypt, following the rocket fire targeting the southern Israeli city of Eilat and the Jordan city of Aqaba, called Hamas an "Iranian agent" and a danger to Egypt's national security and interests.

The visit of Dr. Ahmed al-Ramahi

3. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmed Abd al-Rahman al-Ramahi comes from Ramallah. He is a medical doctor and a senior Hamas activist in Judea and Samaria. He is the secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and active in finance and charitable societies (which are fronts for Hamas activity). Between 2006 and 2009 he was imprisoned in Israel. He is often interviewed about human rights, especially the rights of Palestinian terrorist prisoners in Israel. In May 2010 he chatted with surfers on PALDF, Hamas’ main forum. A surfer named Abu Hussein asked what the role was of Hamas parliament representatives in contacting human rights organization outside Palestine, through them "to condemn the Ramallah authority's war crimes against our youth and brothers."

4. Al-Ramahi answered that "We are in constant contact with human rights organizations, especially the Arab Organization for Human Rights in London." He said that so far the organization had publicized two files of investigations about the PA's "persecution" of Hamas activists ("torture and dismissal from work"), greatly angering the PA's security services. He added that one week previously (i.e., in the middle of May 2010) "we met with the organization's chairman, Amjad al-Salfiti, who visited the West Bank. We supplied him with all the documents we received from our legal counsel." He said that they were likely to receive support in law suits which would be lodged in the near future [by implication, against the Palestinian Authority] by the British branch of the AOHR (Answers to surfers on PALDF, Hamas’ main forum, issued by "Abu Marah" of the forum's board of directors, May 22, 2010).

The British branch of the Arab Organization for Human Rights

5. The Arab Organization for Human Rights is a large NGO based in Cairo. It was founded by an Egyptian intellectual named Sa'ad al-Din Ibrahim and has many branches in the Arab world, including an office in Gaza. According to its website it has no political objectives and only works to further human rights (www.aohr.net, www.gilgamish.org).

6. In effect, the organization's orientation is blatantly anti-Western and its main goal is attacking the United States, Israel and Egypt. It often accuses Israel and the United States of "war crimes" (because of its activities in Iraq), and defends the human rights of militant individuals and organizations. At the same time, it does not criticize Hamas for its brutality against opponents in the Gaza Strip.

The activities of Amjad al-Salfiti

7. The British branch of the AOHR is headed by Amjad al-Salfiti, an expert in international law, who holds British citizenship. He studied law at the University of Central Lancashire, and specializes in human rights. He is responsible for several legal precedents in Britain.

Amjad al-Salfiti
Amjad al-Salfiti accuses Israel of "war crimes" in Operation Cast Lead
(From the Iran's English-language Press TV website, July 6, 2009).

8. Al-Salfiti and his organization are cautious in their public statements, do not publicly identify with Hamas or radical Islam, and represent themselves as promoting "human rights." However, an analysis of publications dealing with their activities and public statements made by al-Salfiti and the British branch of the organization, indicates that their activities are often political in nature and serve a radical Islamic agenda, including that of Hamas.

9. Several examples from recent years are the following:

A. Accusing Israel of "war crimes" – Amjad al-Salfiti was interviewed by Iran's English-language television channel, where he accused Israel of "war crimes" during Operation Cast Lead (Press TV, July 6, 2009).

B. Suing Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu following the death of Hamas terrorist operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh – Al-Salfiti's name was mentioned as representing the al-Mabhouh family after Mahmoud al-Mabhouh died in Dubai.2 In March 2010, representing the family, he lodged a suit against Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu which also demanded punishment for the Mossad.3

C. Criticizing a proposed British law for the struggle against terrorism – In an Al-Arabiya TV program broadcast on August 8, 2008, he claimed that the proposed law dwarfed human rights.4

D. Representing a radical Islamic Egyptian preacher, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was denied entry into Britain – He represented the radical Islamic preacher, sheikh Wajdy Ghoneim, who was detained and deported on the grounds of incitement to terrorism, February 2009. He claimed that the British government had no evidence against his client and that his client preached reconciliation. He blamed the British Jewish community for Ghoneim's deportation.5

E. Criticizing the Egyptian satellite company Nilesat for stopping its broadcasts of Iranian TV's hate propaganda and incitement programs – In November 2009 Nilesat stopped broadcasting the Iranian Arabic-language channel Al-Alam TV, whose objective is to promote Iranian interests in the Arab world. Al-Salfiti criticized Nilesat, claiming it was operating unilaterally and violating its agreement with Al-Alam TV.6

F. Criticizing Egyptian activity targeting the Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels – The British branch of the organization issued a report claiming that the Egyptian security forces use dangerous substances in their fight against the tunnels' activity and by doing so violate international law.7 The report includes the political propaganda battle Hamas is fighting against the Egyptian regime, which seeks to prevent rockets and other weapons from Iran from entering the Gaza Strip (it was recently shown that the use of the rockets is liable to endanger the security of Egypt and Jordan, not only Israel).

G. Claiming that there was no proof of genocide in Darfur – Al-Salfiti was interviewed in the past by Al-Jazeera TV as an expert on international law. In a discussion of whether or not there was genocide in Darfur, he listed the principles of the legal definition of genocide and concluded that it could not be determined that that was the case in Darfur.8 He added that if the United States claimed there was genocide in Darfur, it had to present proof. Thus, when in July 2010 the International Criminal Court issued its second warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on three counts of genocide, both Hamas and Hezbollah rushed to express solidarity with him.9

1 For further information see the February 21, 2010 bulletin, “Britain as a Focus for Hamas’ Political, Propaganda and Legal Activities in Europe.”

2 http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/112840 , February 25, 2010.

3 http://egyoffline.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post_02.html, March 2, 2010.

4 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-188508161/al-arabiya-death-industry.html

5 http://www.shorokpress.com/news/page3.php?id= 4830, February 17, 2009

6 http://www.wata.cc/forums/showthread.php?s=4182cda1a3118842b6cef65e4cf0791e&p=478027#post478027

7 http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/other_reports/arab-organization-for-human-rights-in-uk.pdf

8 http://www.aljazeera.net/Channel/archive/archive?ArchiveId=100570

9 For further information see the July 25, 2010 bulletin, “Hamas and Hezbollah expressed sympathy with the president of Sudan over the second arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for counts of genocide.”

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