Doc's Talk: SHURAT HADIN REVEALS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF WORLD VISION & AUS AID's ILLEGAL FUNDING OF TERRORIST PALESTINIAN ORGANIZATION

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

SHURAT HADIN REVEALS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF WORLD VISION & AUS AID's ILLEGAL FUNDING OF TERRORIST PALESTINIAN ORGANIZATION

IMRA

(Sydney, 20 March 2012) An Israeli civil rights group, Shurat HaDin—Israel Law Center, has revealed conclusive evidence supporting its allegations that World Vision Australia & AusAID are funding an arm of a proscribed terrorist organisation in Gaza in breach of Australian & US law.

On 15 February 2012, Shurat HaDin sent letters to World Vision Australia and AusAID warning that providing financial aid and other forms of material support to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (“UAWC”) was illegal because it was an arm of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (“PFLP”), a proscribed terror group. Shurat HaDin warned that the PFLP was the controlling hand of the UAWC and that PFLP members form the executive of the UAWC. Initially, the organisations suspended aid to the UAWC. However, on 2 March 2012, without having received Shurat HaDin's evidence and based solely on an irrelevant search of registers of not-for-profit organisations, World Vision publicly announced that it had conducted an
“extensive investigation”, that Shurat HaDin's allegations were “unfounded” and resumed funding the UAWC. In a separate letter, AusAID similarly made the same false claims of having conducted a “detailed investigation”.

Today, Shurat HaDin director, attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Australian solicitor Andrew Hamilton reveal their dossier of evidence conclusively implicating the UAWC as an arm of the PFLP. This evidence includes:

• The President of the UAWC Board of Directors, Bashir al Kheiri is a
well known and senior member of the PFLP, head of the PFLP Political Office
in Ramallah, with a long record of arrests & gaol time in Israel for
terrorist involvement and still actively representing the PFLP as recently
as January 2012.

• The Vice President of the UAWC Board of Directors, Jamil Muhammad
Ismail al-Majdalawi (aka Jamil Ismail), is also a well known and senior
member of the PFLP, head of the PFLP political office in Gaza and represents
the PFLP on the PLO central committee.

• Three other UAWC directors (Razeq al Barghouthi, Ramallah, Treasurer;
Taghreed Jom’a, Gaza Member; and Faysal Khalafallah, Gaza Member) are also
members of the PFLP. Taghreed Jom'a is a member of the PFLP's Gaza
leadership.

• The US government aid agency, US AID identified the UAWC as the
agricultural arm of the PFLP in a detailed report back in 1993, noting that
it was established by the PFLP in 1986. US AID does not fund the UAWC.

• The UAWC directly makes its assets available for PFLP use. In
particular:

• The PFLP celebrated it's 42nd anniversary at the UAWC's hall in Khan
Younis, Gaza in December 2009.

• Senior PFLP personnel are actively and publicly involved in UAWC
activity on an ongoing basis. In particular:

• PFLP spokesman Ali Jaradat spoke at the official UAWC conference in
Ramallah in 2011 and another conference organised by the UAWC in November
2011.

• The PFLP actively supported the UAWC's political protest outside UN
Headquarters in Gaza City in 2011 with PFLP central committee member Abu
Rahma speaking at the protest.

• The Deputy Secretary General of the PLFP, Mr Abdel Rahim Malouh, was an
important guest at the UAWC's “Immortal Land Day” political protest on 1
June 2010.

• The PFLP's Arabic language website includes detailed reports of the
UAWC's work, the most recent of which is dated 2 February 2012 while the
UAWC's English site contains reports only until 2009. It is telling that the
PFLP website has much more up to date information on the UAWC's work than
the UAWC's own website.

Shurat HaDin notes that almost all this information is publicly available on
the internet, mostly in English, and is available to anyone conducting a
simple google search in good faith, let alone the “extensive” & “detailed”
investigations that World Vision & AusAID claim to have conducted.

Shurat HaDin also notes that it is clear from basic internet searches that
the UAWC is not merely an agricultural organisation but is extensively
involved in political activity advancing the PFLP agenda. It should not have
been eligible for Australian government aid in the first place.

The PFLP is a proscribed terrorist organisation listed by the Australian
Government under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 (“the Act”). It
is a strict liability offence, under section 21 of the Act for an individual
or corporation to directly or indirectly make an asset available to a
proscribed person or entity.

By providing financial aid to the UAWC, which: was established by the PFLP;
is controlled by senior PFLP operatives; makes its assets available to the
PFLP and acts in coordination with and to advance the interests of the PFLP
(including active involvement in PFLP political activity), World Vision &
AusAID are directly or indirectly making assets available to a proscribed
terrorist entity.

World Vision has admitted to providing at least $US711,000 to the UAWC (out
of A$5 million budget) in the last 18 months alone and appears to have been
funding the UAWC for substantially longer. The penalties for breach of
section 21 of the Act include up to 10 years imprisonment for individuals
and fines of up to 3 times the amount of the transaction for individuals and
corporations. Shurat HaDin calculates that fines in this case could amount
to well over A$15 million if the current $5 million budget allocation to the
UAWC is not the first.
Shurat HaDin Solicitor Andrew Hamilton said, "Not only have World Vision &
AusAID likely broken the law and exposed themselves and their staff to
millions in fines and potential gaol terms, but they have added insult to
injury by grossly misusing Australian taxpayers' money and then misleading
the Australian people by conducting an extremely superficial investigation
while publicly claiming it was extensive and the allegations unfounded.”

According to attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "It is unbelievable that
World Vision and AusAid were unaware that the leadership of the UAWC were
senior officials of the terrorist Popular Front. Australian taxpayers will
be stunned to learn that their money is being given to a terrorist
organisation dedicated to Israel's destruction and the murder of innocent
Jews."

Shurat HaDin calls upon the Australian Federal Police to open an
investigation into this potentially criminal conduct of World Vision &
AusAID. Shurat HaDin will provide its detailed dossier of evidence to the
Australian Federal Police on request and offers to assist in the collection
of further evidence in Israel to enable the successful prosecution of the
organisations and individuals involved.

Shurat HaDin—Israel Law Center (http://israellawcenter.org/) is an
international human rights law organisation dedicated to enforcing basic
human rights through the legal system and representing victims of terrorism
in courtrooms around the world.

For more information:

Andrew Hamilton: andrew@hamilton-fam.com (Sydney) Tel: 02 8002 1283 (after
5pm Sydney time) or Israel mobile +972 54 536 3529

In Israel: Tel.: +972 – 3-7514175, Email: nitsanad@zahav.net.il

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