|
By Ira Sharkansky
 JERUSALEM—One of the items on a prime time evening discussion program was a confrontation between the head of Amnesty International's Israel office and a critic of Amnesty International and numerous other organizations that subject Israel to disproportionate attention while claiming to promote civil rights and justice.
Amnesty's spokesman condemned Hamas for the war crime of targeting civilians with its rockets, and asserted that Amnesty was even handed in accusing all who violate international law. His critic emphasized the travesty of the organization's even handedness. Could an observer claim even handedness when accusing both the Germans and the Russians of killing civilians in World War II, and not putting the greater blame on the Germans?
The moderator of the discussion noted that Amnesty did criticize Hamas as well as Israel in its most recent report, but the color photographs on the front and back covers of its report showed destruction in Gaza and not in Sderot. You can judge for yourselves if you think the organization's report on "Middle East and North Africa" is even handed.
It begins with Israel's launch of an aerial bombardment, casualties in Gaza, and what it says were Israel's repeated breaches of international law that caused a "disproportionate toll among civilians."
The next paragraph notes that "Israel said it launched the attacks in order to stop Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups firing rocket at towns and villages in southern Israel." Is ". . . said it launched. . . " even handed, or does it imply something more heinous?
Paragraph three describes "an 18-month period in which the Israeli army had subjected the inhabitants of Gaza to an unremitting blockade, preventing virtually all movement of people and goods in and out of the territory and stoking a growing humanitarian catastrophe."
One has to read further to learn that there were other problems in the Middle East and North Africa: violence against women and girls, problems of asylum-seekers, refugees, and migrants, discrimination, and deprivation.
Amnesty International's critic on the broadcast was Professor Gerald Steinberg, a personal friend who has created NGO Monitor to survey non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that target Israel.
The list of sinners includes organizations that claim to be exposing injustice around the world, ask for donations, and focus disproportionately on Israel. Along with Amnesty International, they are Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, Christian
Go to the top of right column
|
|
Aid, World Vision, as well as Israeli and Palestinian organizations such as Adalah, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights, and Palestinian Center for Human Rights. NGO
Monitor has also reported on the Durban Review Conference and other organs associated with the United Nations, the anti-Israel tilt in conferences conducted by universities in Britain and North America, and the efforts of faculties to declare boycotts on Israeli academics. The latest postings of NGO Monitor describes a fund raising visit to Saudi Arabia by Human Rights Watch. Its representatives stressed Israeli violations of human rights, but not those of the Saudis.
The NGO Monitor, as well as the organizations it criticizes, are members of a community that compete for our attention and pocketbooks. Against Israel bashers are Israel defenders, who bash the bashers. Along with NGO Monitor are The Israel Project, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Anti-Defamation League, and American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
One suspects that these organizations "preach to the choir." It is more likely that they reinforce those already committed, and do little by way of changing minds or making the unconcerned aware of injustices.
How many troops can these organizations put in the field? Do they contribute anything more than noise? Can they move governments to actually put troops in the field or impose sanctions?
There are no simple answers to these questions.
A country does not want to be put on the list for sanctions. They helped topple the previous regime of South Africa and pressured Libya to alter its course, and are adding to discomforts in North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Compared to them, Israel's suffering is minor. Yet enterprises report that firms in Europe and North America have refused to do business with them because they are Israeli. Academics have wondered if their grant proposals or article submissions have been rejected only because they fell into dirty hands.
My own experiences include a goodly number of articles accepted for publication, and a goodly number rejected. I viewed most rejections as justified, but two of them explained their actions by the charge that I was doing nothing but conveying Israeli propaganda. In one case, I learned that the journal editor had written articles charging Israel and the United States for crimes against humanity, and was in the process of being dismissed for his biases. In the other, the editor agreed to look again, ignored the judge who had accused me of academic misbehavior, and decided in my favor.
It is good that we have publicists to remind the world that other publicists have pushed their criticisms to the point of severe imbalance or even madness. They may lead those with real power think again before they vote sanctions, or send troops against the IDF.
|
|
