Doc's Talk: Dutch FM mulls slashing funding for anti-Israel charity

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Dutch FM mulls slashing funding for anti-Israel charity

BENJAMIN WEINTHAL

Interchurch Organisation for Development and Cooperation uses public funds to finance Electronic Intifada website that equates Israel with Nazis.

BERLIN – Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal “will monitor ICCO’s activities. He will consider this as a minus when he makes up the balance when ICCO applies again in new a subsidies-round,” Ward Bezemer, a spokesman for Rosenthal, told The Jerusalem Post last week.

Bezemer was responding to the Interchurch Organisation for Development and Cooperation’s defense of its use of public funds to finance the anti-Israel Electronic Intifada website. Rosenthal met with the Dutch charity on January 13, and told ICCO that its support of EI contradicts the government’s foreign policy, ICCO said in a statement.

EI equates Israeli policies with the Nazi regime and advocates boycotts against the Jewish state, the Jerusalembased NGO Monitor reported in November. NGO Monitor asserts that EI is plagued by expressions of modern anti- Semitism.

Rosenthal told the Post then, “I will look into the matter personally. If it appears that the government-subsidized NGO ICCO does fund Electronic Intifada, it will have a serious problem with me.”

ICCO on January 14 expressed defiance of Rosenthal’s policy positions rejecting ICCO support for EI.

ICCO titled its statement, “ICCO will not change policy after discussion with Dutch foreign minister,” and said “it discussed its funding of the website The Electronic Intifada with Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Uri Rosenthal. It was a tough and straightforward discussion, but ICCO sees no reason to change its policy. International law is the main guideline for ICCO’s work.”

The ICCO said, “According [to] the minister, the site offers a platform for the call for boycott of Israel. Supporting this website is therefore, in the minister’s view, diametrically opposed to Dutch foreign policy. ICCO disagrees with the minister on this.”

According to the ICCO statement, “Since 2005, more than 170 Palestinian and some Israeli organizations have called for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli policy. The purpose is for Israel to comply with international law and respect human rights. This pressure is justified as the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories continue. It is a peaceful and legal way to push for an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and to achieve a peaceful and just solution.”

NGO Monitor criticized ICCO’s statement and reported Dutch government funding of another anti-Israel nonprofit.

NGO Monitor said that Oxfam Novib sponsored a speaking tour for Ali Abunimah, a co-founder of EI, who has called for the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, wrote the Post by e-mail on Monday: “We note that Foreign Minister Rosenthal is continuing the important inquiry into ICCO’s funding of Electronic Intifada.”

He continued, “EI is a leader in the demonization of Israel, including the anti-Semitic BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaign, and frequently compares the Israeli military to Nazis. EI executive director Ali Abunimah labels Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as ‘collaborators,’ and PA participation in peace talks as ‘collaboration.’” Steinberg added, “As the Dutch government opposes such activities and statements, this inflammatory rhetoric and calls to isolate Israel internationally are entirely counterproductive to achieving peace in the region. We will continue to monitor the investigation and call for the end of ICCO funding for all issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until a full audit has been completed.

“Our research shows that the Dutch government also funds Oxfam Novib, which in 2009 funded a Netherlands speaking tour for Abunimah.

During the tour, Abunimah called for an end to Israel as a Jewish state, advocated for the BDS movement, and invoked the rhetoric of ‘apartheid.’ These are not isolated incidents – this type of poisonous activity is precisely why European government funding of NGOs requires close oversight and full transparency.

We expect the Dutch government to investigate this funding as well,” Steinberg said.

Ruud Huurman, a spokesman for Oxfam Novib, the Dutch affiliate of Oxfam, responded to Post queries by e-mail on Wednesday. “In 2009, Oxfam Novib provided modest funding for a public discussion entitled Towards a Rights-Based Solution for the conflict in Palestine/Israel.

The event took place on 16 May 2009 in the renowned Amsterdam-based public debate center De Balie. The funding consisted of Euro 5,650 and included the traveling and lodging costs of Mr.

Abunimah. The event was organized by the Netherlands Palestine Committee, in cooperation with al-Awda and the Palestinian community in the Netherlands,” Huurman said.

When asked about Abunimah and EI’s calls for boycotts against Israel and the allegations that his and EI’s comments are anti-Semitic, Huurman wrote, “Whilst Oxfam Novib has not itself signed on to the call for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) in relation to Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territory, we fully support the democratic right of Mr. Abunimah to express his views in this regard.”

“Oxfam Novib has been working in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1982 and with Palestinian refugees in Lebanon since 1985. Our work there targets the most vulnerable Palestinians such as rural communities, women and children. We also support Israeli and Palestinian civil society organizations striving for human rights and respect for international law. Oxfam Novib bases its work on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law. We would never provide support to organizations and individuals who discriminate or incite violence and hatred,” Huurman said.

ICCO “behaves like a state within a state,” Ronny Naftaniel, head of The Haguebased Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, told the Post via telephone on Tuesday, speaking from Kiev, where he was attending a Jewish conference.

The Dutch people want to support aid for people in developing countries and not for anti-Israel propaganda and boycott measures against the Jewish state, he said.

Naftaniel dismissed ICCO’s claim that it adheres to international law.

“If you support an organization that is against the existence of the State of Israel and promotes boycotts, then they are themselves against international law.”

Most members of parliament support Rosenthal’s opposition to EI, Naftaniel said. There might be legal obstacles to pulling the plug on ICCO funding during the life of the contract, he said.

ICCO received a four-year budget from the Dutch government and the contract expires in three years, Naftaniel said.

Rosenthal’s decision and the Dutch parliamentary majority against Dutch taxpayer funding for anti-Israel NGO activity could have implications for other Dutch charities, Naftaniel said.

It is unclear if the Dutch foreign minister will take legal action to terminate ICCO’s funding during the life of the four-year agreement.

Yochanan Visser, who made aliya from the Netherlands in 2000 and is head of the organization Missing Peace, told the Post on Tuesday that “based on our research, we came to the conclusion that the Dutch government should immediately cut the subsidy to ICCO, because it continues to refuse a stop to the funding of Electronic Intifada, which is a jihadist news site.”

Visser said that in official statements, ICCO “calls for a just peace for everyone (Israeli’s and Palestinians) and states that protection of human rights and International law is the main guideline for her work.

“But in reality it continues to fund a news site (EI) that whitewashes suicide terrorism, makes pleas for Islamist terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbullah, demonizes Israel and invokes hatred of the Jewish state. It is impossible to understand how this enhances the chances for peace.”

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