"Human Rights" lies - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
User avatar
By noir
#14864046
Investigation finds Breaking the Silence spokesman didn’t beat Palestinian. In September, authorities managed to track down Hassan Julani, the Palestinian that the Breaking the Silence spokesman claimed to have assaulted. While Julani confirmed that he was indeed arrested in February 2014, as Issacharoff told police, the Palestinian insisted that no violence was employed in order to apprehend him.

These EU-backed pro Palestinians NGO's getting funds from EU per "Human Rights abuses" they get. A nice way to make a living out of nothing.

These NGO campaigns can be traced to the NGO Forum at the UN’s 2001 World  Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, which marked a major increase in  the re-emergence of antisemitism, accusing Israel of perpetrating  “holocausts,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “genocide,” and declared Israel to be a “racist, apartheid state in which Israels [sic] brand of apartheid” is a “crime against humanity.”


https://www.timesofisrael.com/breaking- ... lestinian/

Investigation finds Breaking the Silence spokesman didn’t beat Palestinian


JUSTICE MINISTER: NGO SPOKESMAN 'IS A LIAR DEFAMING ISRAEL'
Investigation finds Breaking the Silence spokesman didn’t beat Palestinian
Hebron man denies Dean Issacharoff assaulted him; Netanyahu says decision 'proof' the group's testimonies on West Bank abuses are 'lies'

By JACOB MAGID
16 November 2017, 7:13 pm 12

Image

Screen capture from video in which Breaking the Silence spokesman Dean Issacharoff described how he beat a passive Palestinian protester in Hebron, filmed at a rally in April, 2017. (YouTube/hakolhayehudi)

The State Attorney’s Office closed its investigation against the spokesman of the left-wing Breaking the Silence group Thursday after concluding that his confessed assault of a Palestinian man had never taken place.

Police had opened a probe against Dean Issacharoff after he claimed at a rally in April that he brutally beat the man during his service as an IDF officer in Hebron.


In September, authorities managed to track down Hassan Julani, the Palestinian Issacharoff said he had assaulted. While Julani confirmed that he was indeed arrested in February 2014, as Issacharoff had told police, the Palestinian insisted that no violence was employed in order to apprehend him.

Accordingly, the State Attorney’s Office announced Thursday that it had decided to close the assault investigation against the NGO spokesman “after the investigation revealed that the events he described did not occur.”


Breaking the Silence, which publishes the testimonies of former Israeli soldiers who report on alleged human rights abuses by the IDF in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, has raised the ire of Israeli officials and drawn criticism from those who question the authenticity of its mostly anonymous testimonies.

Responding to the State Attorney’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “Breaking the Silence lies and slanders our soldiers internationally. Today, in case anyone had any doubt, this fact has received further proof. The truth wins.”

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who had approached Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit with a request to probe Issacharoff in June, also welcomed the decision to drop the case.

“It turns out that the Breaking the Silence spokesman is a liar defaming the State of Israel in front of the world,” she said in a statement Thursday. “Kudos to his comrades in his company who refused to remain indifferent and were unwilling to remain silent while he lies. It is good that the truth has come to light about this organization, which is making money at the expense of IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens.”

For its part, Breaking the Silence told The Times of Israel that it had investigated the claims of its spokesman — as it says it does with every testimony it receives from former soldiers — and found witnesses who corroborated Issacharoff’s story.

In a separate statement, the NGO said it “wasn’t surprised” by Thursday’s decision, claiming that the investigation had been politically motivated from the outset. The group accused State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan of being Shaked’s “political servant.”


The statement went on to argue that the testimony by Julani had been coerced. “When Israeli policemen from Hebron remove a Palestinian from his house and interrogate him about an incident that happened three years ago, he will likely say anything he can to satisfy them and provide them with what they want,” the group argued.

Issacharoff’s attorney, Gaby Lasky, called into question the motivation of the investigators. “Throughout the entire history of Israeli occupation, a file has never been opened so quickly, the Palestinian victim has not been located so quickly and a decision to close the probe has not been made so quickly. This raises the suspicion that this a was political maneuver and not based off of relevant considerations,” she said in a statement.

Also coming to Issacharoff’s defense was one of his former comrades, Ruben Silverstone, who said he was persuaded to speak out after a few members of their company had “attempted to tarnish [Dean’s] reputation.”

In a video message posted Thursday evening, Silverstone said he recalled witnessing the incident as Issacharoff had described. “On that day we were part of a security force dealing with the riots. We did arrest an individual, and Dean did knee that individual in order to arrest him. Those are facts. This is not a lie, and I just wanted to set that straight,” he said.


During the April rally, Issacharoff recounted that his Nahal Brigade infantry unit was deployed in Hebron and would regularly confront stone-throwing Palestinian protesters. On one occasion, he related, his company commander ordered him to handcuff a Palestinian, later identified as Julani, who was passively resisting arrest.

Issacharoff described how, with his soldiers and commanding officer watching, he grabbed the Palestinian by the back of the neck and “began to knee him in the face and chest until he was bleeding and dazed” before dragging him off to be detained.

“As a soldier I never knew how to deal with someone who resists nonviolently,” Issacharoff told the rally.

A month after Issacharoff’s rally appearance, Reservists on Duty, an organization that works to “expose the real intentions” of Breaking the Silence, published a video in which former members of his platoon, including his commander, called him a liar.


In June, Shaked told Army Radio of her request for the attorney general to open a war crimes probe against Issacharoff, in what critics decried as an attempt to discredit Breaking the Silence while demonstrating that Israel investigates claims of abuse against Palestinians.

“The spokesperson of Breaking the Silence stands up and says that he himself committed a crime against a Palestinian and pounded him with blows,” Shaked said. “If that is really what happened, he should be investigated and punished. If it didn’t happen, the state needs to officially declare that it didn’t happen.”

Breaking the Silence told The Times of Israel at the time that it would not be deterred from its objectives by pressure from Shaked.

“If the justice minister believes that by hypocritically jumping on one testimony of a Breaking the Silence activist she will succeed in discouraging soldiers from testifying and opposing the occupation, she is making a big mistake,” the group said in a statement. “Because there is only one way to stop us and that is to end the occupation.”



Breaking the Silence spokesman doubles down on claim he beat a Palestinian


Breaking the Silence spokesman doubles down on claim he beat a Palestinian
Dean Issacharoff says investigation that cleared him of assault was a 'farce,' claims government fears a trial

By JACOB MAGID
17 November 2017, 9:12 pm 5

Breaking the Silence spokesman Dean Issacharoff speaks in a November 17, 2017 video statement. (Screen capture/Facebook)

The spokesman for Breaking the Silence on Friday challenged the government to fully investigate his alleged assault of a Palestinian after the State Attorney’s Office closed its probe into the matter, stating that the soldier-turned activist had made it up.

Breaking the Silence, which publishes the testimonies of former Israeli soldiers who report on alleged human rights abuses by the IDF in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, has raised the ire of Israeli officials and drawn criticism from those who question the authenticity of its mostly anonymous claims.


In a video statement posted to social media on Friday, Dean Issacharoff repeated the claim that he first made at an April rally — that while serving as an IDF officer in Hebron, he repeatedly kneed a Palestinian in the head while apprehending him during a February 2014 protest.

“But now, in a farce of an investigation, the State Attorney’s Office declared that I’m a liar,” Issacharoff said after a probe into the alleged assault was closed on Thursday.

“Why do you think they [State Attorney’s Office] did not take the testimony of Ruben, the company commander’s assistant who was standing right next to me while I kneed the Palestinians?” Issacharoff asked.

He then showed footage from a video statement released Thursday by Issacharoff’s comrade, Ruben Silverstone, in which he corroborates the NGO spokesman’s story.


“Perhaps it is because it did not fit the conclusion that the prosecution knew Ayelet Shaked wanted to receive?” the spokesman added, referring to the justice minister who had originally called for the probe to be opened against Issacharoff in June.

Shaked took up the issue after Reservists on Duty, an organization that works to “expose the real intentions” of Breaking the Silence, published a video in which former members of Issacharoff’s platoon, including his commander, called him a liar.

In September, authorities managed to track down Hassan Julani, the Palestinian that the Breaking the Silence spokesman claimed to have assaulted. While Julani confirmed that he was indeed arrested in February 2014, as Issacharoff told police, the Palestinian insisted that no violence was employed in order to apprehend him.

Accordingly, the State Attorney’s Office announced Thursday that it had decided to close the assault investigation against the activist “after the investigation revealed that the events he described did not occur.”



Responding to the State Attorney’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “Breaking the Silence lies and slanders our soldiers internationally. Today, in case anyone had any doubt, this fact has received further proof. The truth wins.”

For its part, Breaking the Silence told The Times of Israel that it had investigated the claims of its spokesman — as it said it does with every testimony it receives from former soldiers — and found witnesses who corroborated Issacharoff’s story.

Its Thursday statement went on to argue that the testimony by Julani had been coerced. “When Israeli policemen from Hebron remove a Palestinian from his house and interrogate him about an incident that happened three years ago, he will likely say anything he can to satisfy them and provide them with what they want,” the group argued.

Friday’s video saw Issacharoff go on the offensive after the legal loss.

“These hands were used to beat Palestinians in the territories. I’m not proud of it, but I’m not afraid of the truth,” he said. “If I take responsibility for my violence, they will have to take responsibility for sending us to serve in the territories.”

Issacharoff then challenged the government to fully investigate the matter. “I call on the State Prosecutor’s Office and the government: let’s go to court. What do you say? Are you coming? Or are you cowards?”

Last edited by noir on 19 Nov 2017 18:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Politiks
#14864047
Human Rights ONG's are the scum of universe. Ecuador's President, Rafel Correa, kick them ansd US military "effort" out of the country, they are doing just fine now and are able to implant civil rights after getting rid of those ONG's.

Those ONG's were created by USA and EU to benefit them, not even to benefit US citizens or Europeans in General but to control the world. I hate ONG's and when I see them at the metro trying to get signatures for something I always tell them to fuck off. Certain ONG's are great though and do a wonderful job but they are the exception of the exception and are usually local ONG's supported by the community they belong not foreign money like Soros money.
User avatar
By noir
#14864048
But it works. EU funds them and many believe on their lies.


In April 2017 the social democratic German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel decided to meet with Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem, two Israeli NGOs, while he was visiting Israel despite objection from Israel PM which led the canceling of their meeting during the visit. In other words, Gabriel's choice was Germany's choice to prefer blatant anti-Israel NGOs over the elected Prime Minister of Israel.

The two organizations he met with are B'Tzelem and Breaking the Silence, groups that exist only to vilify Israel. Germany is supporting these organizations with millions of euros, thus blatantly interfering in Israel's internal affairs. For too long now, Israel has turned a blind eye to foreign governments' intervention, these attempts to make Israel capitulate to the European radical left agenda, an agenda that is becoming increasingly antisemitic.


Germany's Choice

Wednesday, April 26, 2017 |  Tsvi Sadan

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.as ... &nid=31515

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel made a choice during his visit to Israel. He chosen to meet with two subversive NGOs rather than sit with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Gabriel's choice would be akin to a visit to Germany by Israel's Foreign Minister during which he met with German NGOs investigating German soldiers for war crimes in Afghanistan rather than meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel.

What makes Gabriel's choice even more aggravating is the fact that his visit was part of Germany's participation in Holocaust Memorial Day. Not unrelated is the fact that Gabriel's father was an avowed Nazi until the day he died in 2012, at the age of 91. Though this does not makes him one, it should have made him all the more sensitive.

Further still, Gabriel's choice was made after a week of exchanges between himself and Netanyahu's office. In other words, Gabriel's choice was Germany's choice to prefer blatant anti-Israel NGOs over the elected Prime Minister of Israel.

The two organizations he met with are B'Tzelem and Breaking the Silence, groups that exist only to vilify Israel. Germany is supporting these organizations with millions of euros, thus blatantly interfering in Israel's internal affairs. For too long now, Israel has turned a blind eye to foreign governments' intervention, these attempts to make Israel capitulate to the European radical left agenda, an agenda that is becoming increasingly antisemitic.

Eldad Beck, a journalist who lived for many years in Germany, and who is well versed in German politics, wrote for the Mida news portal that Sigmar's was a deliberate and well calculated provocation.

"Anyone claiming that the German Foreign Minister didn't know about the explosive nature of his meeting with Breaking the Silence and B'Tzelem," writes Beck, "is throwing dust in your eyes. The German government, German political parties and private and government funds are among the largest supporters of [Israeli] left-wing organizations."

Given this background, Netanyahu, for the first time, has drawn a clear red line: "My policy is clear," he said, "not to meet with diplomats who visit Israel and engage with organizations that slander Israeli soldiers and seek to have them put on trial as war criminals."

Commenting on Netanyahu's decision to cancel the meeting with him, Sigmar mislead observers by presenting subversive organizations as legitimate "civil organizations, some of which are critical of the government." He also said that "we do not want to enter the Israeli political game."

What Sigmar would not state was the names of these "civil organizations" that Germany supports. These are the most radical, not civil, but political NGOs disguised as civil organizations.

According to NGO Monitor, Germany supports organizations engaged in legal warfare and advancing boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Among those receiving money from Germany are the "Women's Coalition for Peace," "Physicians for Human Rights," and "Zochrot" – an organization calling for the return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel (in other words, Israel's destruction).

Germany also supports Palestinian organizations like Miftah, which has accused Israel of apartheid, cultural genocide and war crimes.


Gadi Taub
THE GABRIEL AFFAIR
Human Rights and German-Israeli relations after the Gabriel Affair
SUMMER / 2017

In April 2017 the social democratic German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabrieldecided to meet with Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem, two Israeli NGOs, while he was visiting Israel. He did so knowing that this would result in the Israeli prime minster refusing to meet with him. Self-confessed Israeli ‘leftist’ Gadi Taub examines the political meaning of ‘the Gabriel Affair’. Why did the prime minister make it a matter of ‘B’Tselem or me’ and was he right to do so? How should Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem be characterised – as legitimate human rights organisations or as demonisers of the State of Israel? And what should be the proper relationship between human rights advocacy and the unresolved national question in Israel and Palestine?
Most Israelis assume – or at least they did until very recently – that Germany is a steadfast friend of Israel. They therefore find it hard to imagine that it would actively support organisations which contribute to the campaign to delegitimise Israel’s right to exist. But all that may have changed after the debacle in April between German Foreign Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Gabriel, on the occasion of an official visit for Holocaust Memorial Day, announced that he would meet the representatives of two radical left-wing civil society organisations – Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem. When Netanyahu said that if those meetings went ahead he would boycott the visit and refuse to meet Gabriel, many thought he was overreacting. Few, however, expected Gabriel to choose those two organisations over Israel’s prime minster (and acting foreign minister). And when he did, things began to appear in a new light. It no longer seemed that the German foreign minister made an honest mistake, not knowing how controversial these organisations were among Israelis. It appeared, instead, that he knew exactly what he was doing and that it was us, the Israeli public, who had made a mistake in our assumptions about German-Israeli relations.
Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem are not considered by many Israelis to be honest human rights watchdogs. Rather, many suspect that they abuse the issue of human rights in the service of a worldwide campaign to demonise Israel. That a German minister would insist on lending support to those who are considered by many to be part of the campaign to deny the right of Jews to self-determination was so bewildering that it took a while to register. And when it did, Netanyahu found support for his unusual move even from people far beyond his constituency. Many suspected that the minister went to visit those specific organisations not despite the fact that they are so useful to those who demonise us, but precisely because of that fact. And this suspicion seemed to gain validity as the affair progressed.

THE GABRIEL AFFAIR
Before the Gabriel affair few Israelis were aware of how popular it is in Germany to compare Israel to the Nazis. But one has to admit that it does have its own perverted psychological logic. If the Jews are now victimisers, not victims, does that not partially alleviate the terrible burden of German guilt? Does that not create a counterweight to the ever-present sense that the very existence of Jews is a permanent reminder of German sins? Does not the psychological need, if not exactly the argument, press towards some path of relief in blaming the victims?
By refusing Netanyahu’s request and lending his support to organisations bent on demonising Israel, Gabriel made many wonder whether he was not in fact engaged in exactly this kind of politico-psychological game, which may appeal to his own constituency at home. But surely a German foreign minister on an official visit on the occasion of Holocaust Memorial Day, cannot be trying to manipulate symbols and emotions so as to switch victims and victimisers! Or could he? We were all ears now.
So it was not overlooked here in Israel when, upon his return to Germany, Gabriel said to the Frankfurter Rundschau that the Social Democrats, his own party, were, along with the Jews, among ‘the first victims of the holocaust’ (this was later changed on the paper’s website from victims of ‘the holocaust’ to victims of ‘the Nazis’). So after using his state visit to look at Israel through the lens of organisations emphasising our sins, and thus classifying us as victimisers, was he now making himself the victim (by proxy), and not just any victim, but a victim of Nazism? Where was all this heading? It brought to mind the bitterly sarcastic quip attributed to Israeli psychiatrist Zvi Rex: ‘The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.’ Will we soon need to apologise for it to Gabriel?
All this, we should note, was carried on in the guise of high handed – and decidedly condescending – rhetoric. Gabriel, on his own account, was helping to instruct us about the dangers of nationalism – ours – and the virtues of ‘European values,’ and democracy. But despite the immaculately humanitarian vocabulary, it was not hard to sense that something very sinister was afoot, since the minister’s interest in malignant nationalism and human rights seemed to be selective. He was apparently more interested in cases where Israel could be blamed. He had no plans to meet any civil society organisations which document Palestinian abuses of human rights, and his high-minded exhortations against Jewish nationalism were not matched by any criticism of the murderous sort of xenophobic nationalism which the Palestinians habitually – and institutionally – encourage in their people, especially their young. (Gabriel has since also hosted an Iranian religious leader who has called for the elimination of Israel, as part of an official Foreign Ministry event intended to harness religion for the cause of peace, the Jerusalem Post reported.) Of course Palestinian anti-Semitism is less useful as a ‘lesson of the holocaust’ if such a lesson is only intended to insinuate – to be sure, in a roundabout, never-explicit way – that the former victims have now become the culprits, thus helping to lighten Germany’s moral burden.
Netanyahu was absolutely right to forcefully refuse to take part in any such shady game of insinuations. So perhaps we should thank Gabriel, after all, for providing the opportunity to bring all this home to Israelis. We can appreciate that the German past is indeed a difficult burden to carry, and we can even sympathise with the pains of sons who have to live with their fathers’ sins, but it is by no means the task of Jews to help relieve, much less shoulder, Germany’s historical guilt. So it is easy to see why Israelis found the whole affair rather nauseating.
But even this was not yet all. Many Israelis dismiss the shrill rhetoric of Netanyahu’s right-wing government, in which complaints about how European money is funnelled through the Palestinian Authority (PA) to support terrorism can get lost in the general air of paranoid-seeming rhetoric. But this complaint too now received more attention when, as fate would have it, the US recently became quite firm about the PA’s support of the families of terrorists. The PA under Mahmoud Abbas habitually calls Palestinian terrorists ‘martyrs’ and offers generous financial aid to their families. Gabriel, who was so particular about Israel’s moral conduct, had nothing to say about how German money is used in that way. But we do. And we should hold all donors accountable if they allow their money to be used to provide incentives for terrorism. Germany is a good place to start, and Netanyahu was right to highlight all this.
According to press reports in Israel which followed Gabriel’s visit, Germany denied entry to Turkish officials of Recap Erdogan’s government when they wanted to meet with German citizens of Turkish origin. Germany feared representatives of the Turkish state would radicalise members of its own citizenry. So when all was said and done it seemed like Netanyahu’s treatment of Gabriel was actually mild in comparison. Perhaps it should be less mild in the future.

http://fathomjournal.org/human-rights-a ... el-affair/
Last edited by noir on 19 Nov 2017 19:02, edited 1 time in total.
#14864051
In January 2010, Breaking the Silence published a booklet titled Women Soldiers' Testimonies that contained 96 anonymous accounts from more than 40 women officers, commanders and soldiers in various units who had served as combatants and in supporting combat roles in the Israeli-occupied territories since 2000.[25] The booklet lists the rank, unit, and location of the soldiers who provided the testimonies.[25] Ynetnews published excerpts from the report, summarizing them as showing the military's "systematic humiliation of Palestinians, reckless and cruel violence, theft, killing of innocent people and cover-up."[49]

In response, an IDF representative said, "These are anonymous testimonies, without any mention of a time or a place, and their reliability cannot be examined in any way. The IDF is a controlled state organization, which learns and draws lessons, and cooperates with any serious body with the shared goal of exhausting any inquiry when such an examination is inquired."[49]

Breaking the Silence has been accused by groups affiliated with the Right, such as Im Tirtzu, Reservists on Duty and My Truth, of fabricating and misrepresenting testimonies.[62][63][64]

In July 2016, Channel 10 (Israel)'s HaMakor program aired an investigative report that confirmed the accuracy of some testimonies while finding that other testimonies contained falsehoods, and others portrayed a distorted picture of events. According to the investigation, "the verification process [of testimonies]...is much less stringent than has been described many times by members of the organization."[65] Breaking the Silence responded that the cases which the report found "to be 'untrue' were incidents in which the findings of investigations (conducted either by police or intra-military) produced additional information, that was sometimes conflicting from the information known to the soldier who testified."[66]


It seems clear that Breaking the Silence routinely fabricated these horrific stories about human rights abuses by the Israeli soldiers. The anonymous sources cited by Breaking the Silence in its publications are as credible as former comfort women in Korea who were also induced by a Korean NGO to lie about their experiences working in military brothels to fit into their historical narratives.
User avatar
By noir
#14864053
Most of EU public opinion doesn't care that they are lies because it gives them a psychological rehabilitation for their historical crimes against the Jews. There is a psychological need of relief in blaming the victims.

NGOs and the New Antisemitism  Anne Herzberg.

These incidents represent extreme manifestations of a “new antisemitism,” described  by Canada’s former Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler, as “a new, globalized, virulent antisemitism” that “denies the Jewish People the right to live as equal members of the  Family of Nations.”8 An often overlooked aspect of this “new antisemitism” is the role played by human  rights and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in contributing to the  environment of demonization via politicized campaigns and lobbying. Disturbingly,  many of these activities are funded by the European Union and European governments;  large humanitarian Christian organizations that receive substantial government funding, such as Diakonia (Sweden), Trocaire (Ireland), and Christian Aid (UK); large foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Oxfam  NOVIB; and even the progressive Jewish New Israel Fund (NIF).9 These NGO campaigns can be traced to the NGO Forum at the UN’s 2001 World  Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, which marked a major increase in  the re-emergence of antisemitism.10 At the forum, officials from more than 1,500 participating NGOs, including international NGO superpowers, Human Rights Watch and  Amnesty International, singled out Israel for condemnation, accusing it of perpetrating  “holocausts,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “genocide,” and declared Israel to be a “racist, apartheid state in which Israels [sic] brand of apartheid” is a “crime against humanity.”  The Conference revived the hateful 1975 “Zionism is racism” slogan, repealed in 1991 by  the UN General Assembly, but still promoted by anti-Israel actors.

Mass demonstrations included  the chant, “What we have done to apartheid in South Africa, must be done to Zionism in  Palestine.”

As Professor Gerald Steinberg notes, “the NGO Forum’s Final Declaration established the ‘Durban Strategy’—‘a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an  apartheid state,’ and cal[ed] for ‘the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid,  military cooperation, and training) between all states and Israel.’”11 The “Durban Strategy” has underpinned a decade of anti-Israel efforts by NGOs, including the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel;  NGO-initiated lawsuits throughout Europe and North America against Israeli officials  for “war crimes” (“lawfare”); campaigns in the UN (e.g., the Goldstone mission, Human Rights Council) and other international fora such as the European Parliament; and  “pursuing the parastatal Zionist organizations worldwide” by “dealing with them  legally as racist, colonial institutions.”12 NGOs carrying out the Durban Strategy invest millions in publications, public relations blitzes, and lobbying efforts utilizing the rhetoric of human rights and international law to single out Israel as their ultimate violator and abuser.13

By couching  political attacks in these terms, NGOs seek to create a veneer of credibility and expertise, thereby increasing international pressure against Israel.

These cases have followed a standard pattern. Israel is faced with a spate of terror  attacks and responds with counter measures of increasing severity in order to protect its  population. NGOs immediately issue numerous condemnations, almost all against  Israel, with accusations of “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and the intentional  targeting of civilians. These allegations are generally based on speculation with little to  no hard evidence. The media and the international community adopt these claims at face  value, rarely conducting independent verification. The UN, particularly the structurally  biased Human Rights Council,14 engages in further condemnations, calling for international investigations and war crimes trials. NGOs are recruited to play an integral role in  these processes further entrenching their influence and claims. The context of terror is  completely erased, as are Israel’s rights to self-defense and self-determination.

Significantly, under the Durban Strategy, the concepts of Zionism and a Jewish state  per se (not specific policies or territorial disputes) are the causes of Israeli “racism,”  “apartheid,” and “occupation.” As such, NGO campaigns based on the Durban Strategy  meet the working definition of antisemitism developed by the EU Monitoring Centre on  Racism and Xenophobia, and recommended for adoption by the United Kingdom’s All Party Parliamentary Groups Against Antisemitism.

Singling out only Israel for sanctions for policies that are widespread among other  nations, or demanding that Jews be better or more moral than others because of their history as victims.  

Similarly, British lawyer Anthony Julius has observed that this new antisemitism  “became hegemonic in the 1990s and 2000s.… It is to be distinguished from the ‘old  antisemitism’ because it takes Israel and the Zionist project as its collective term for the Jews.” Nevertheless, it is “continuous with the ‘old antisemitism’ in its principal  stratagems and tropes, while novel in its specific focus upon the Jewish State—uniquely  evil and without the right to exist.”

The following examples reflect several themes adopted by NGOs in carrying out the  Durban Strategy that manifests this “new antisemitism.”

Promoting the “Zionism is racism” slogan is a cornerstone of BDS. For proponents of  this strategy, the term “occupation” does not refer to an Israeli presence in territories  acquired in the 1967 war, but rather refers to the establishment of Israel in 1948. In other words, this movement rejects a State of Israel within any boundaries.

According to the BDS National  Committee, a coalition of dozens of organizations that includes many EU- and European-funded NGOs:  The sources of Israel’s regime are found in the racist ideology of late 19th century European colonialism which was adopted by the dominant stream of the Zionist movement  (World Zionist Organization, Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund, a.o.) in order to  justify and recruit political support for its colonial project of an exclusive Jewish state in  Palestine (i.e. in the area of current Israel and the OPT). Thus, secular political Zionism  translated ancient religious-spiritual notions of Jews as “a chosen people” and of “Eretz  Israel” into an aggressive and racist, political colonial program, which—based on the doctrine that Jews were a nation in political terms with superior claims to Palestine—called to  “redeem” Palestine, which was declared to be “a land without people.”23

As noted above, Badil (which is also a BNC leader) organized a “targeted campaign to  expose the lies of AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League and to expose the Jewish and  Zionist community’s double standards regarding Nakba & Occupation.”  

4. APARTHEID RHETORIC 
A key component of the Durban Strategy is to equate Israel with apartheid South Africa,  despite the manifest differences between the two countries.30 Former South African  dissident Benjamin Pogrund has remarked that the term “apartheid” is used “because it  comes easily to hand: it is a lazy label for the complexities of the Middle East conflict.”  Irwin Cotler notes that “the indictment of Israel as an apartheid state … also involves the  call for the dismantling of Israel.…” The singling-out of Israel as an “apartheid state,”  therefore, is a form of incitement and in itself may be an expression of racism.  NGO campaigns invoking the apartheid canard take several forms, including: (1)  gratuitous use of apartheid rhetoric; (2) characterizing the Arab-Israeli conflict as motivated by alleged Jewish race-hatred of Arabs, rather than one based on competing  national and territorial claims; (3) disregarding the role of Arab bigotry; (4) ignoring the  context of terror; (5) claiming all alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian  law rise to the level of “apartheid,” albeit only if committed by Israel; (6) hypocritically  accusing Israel of “apartheid” while actively participating in the political process and  enjoying the benefits conferred by the state; and (7) ignoring practices in Arab and  Muslim countries that more closely resemble apartheid South Africa.

Despite claims of being founded in principles of universal human rights and international law, many of these NGO allegations and legal arguments originate with the PLO’s  Negotiations Affairs Department and were developed for propaganda purposes. Again,  European and foundation funding plays a significant role in facilitating these campaigns, including grants from the New Israel Fund.

Jessica Montell, Executive  Director of the NIF- and European-funded B’Tselem, commented that “the word apartheid is useful for mobilizing people because of its emotional power. In some cases, the  situation in the West Bank is worse than apartheid in South Africa.” NIF- and EU funded Adalah joined with European-funded Al Haq to issue a 302-page publication  entitled, “Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A Re-Assessment of Israel’s Practices in  the Occupied Palestinian Territories under International Law.” The publication declares  Israel guilty of “colonialism” and “apartheid” and purports to catalogue Israel’s “violations” including implementing a “Grand Apartheid” policy by placing Palestinians in  “reserves and ghettoes.” The report concludes by demanding the international community “request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding  Israel’s practices of apartheid and colonialism.”  

This terminology bolsters several NGO themes, including that Jews are “foreign, colonial occupiers” in the region; that Jewish self-determination is “racist” and illegitimate,  as opposed to Palestinian self-determination, which is an international legal obligation;  and that the Law of Return and symbols such as the Israeli flag or national anthem are  “racist” even though most European countries and all Islamic countries have official  state religions and official state religious symbols.

Many NGOs engage  in these accusations and comparisons and use Nazi or Holocaust rhetoric in their campaigns to describe alleged Israeli abuses toward the Palestinians. Terms such as “ghettos,”  “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” and “concentration camps” frequently appear.  

CONCLUSION 
Given the tens of millions of dollars funneled each year by European governments and  prominent foundations to NGOs that are used to promote themes that fall under the  EU’s own definition of antisemitism, it is important to highlight these examples and  bring them to the attention of those underwriting such NGO activities. These funding  agencies must recognize their role in spreading antisemitism by financing organizations  that engage in these highly offensive and inflammatory activities. It is critical that  funders adopt guidelines to prevent further abuse of taxpayer largesse and generous  donations. It is also essential that such funding is regularly monitored and independent  evaluations are conducted with mechanisms put in place for oversight. At present, little  to no substantive evaluation of NGO activities is conducted by the European Union,  governments or foundation funders.  Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is one of the most complex political issues of  our time. Solutions cannot be found, however, when problems are solely viewed  through a narrow ideological lens and morality and universal principles are exploited to  promote bias and racism. Palestinian self-determination cannot be considered a just  cause if it is obtained by propagating antisemitism—the “oldest hatred”—or by denigrating and seeking to exterminate Jewish self-determination rights. Hopefully, the  critical questions raised in this paper will inform the debate and lead to the necessary  reforms. Without such changes, peace and co-existence will be farther away than ever. 
User avatar
By noir
#14864472
The latest twist in a bizarre saga during which Dean Issacharoff has tried to prove his guilt and defend the organization from charges of lying. Breaking the Silence released footage Monday that appeared to corroborate the testimony of its spokesman who claimed he had assaulted a Palestinian during his army service.



The bizarre thing is all those who defend a criminal just because he serves the right agenda





Online comments,


I wonder if he's doing it for the money or because he has mental health issues

This continues to be the funniest story covered by TimesOfIsrael.

Although it reveals my age, I am reminded of the Monty Python shtick with the monks flagellating themselves by smacking their heads with wood planks.

Sadly they are funded by EU nations who dont really care about lies and live by "the ends justify the means". We all know what the EU wants Israel to do. The EU also fund Palestinian hate education.





http://www.jewishpress.com/news/politic ... 017/11/21/

Eager to Help, B’Tselem Produce Video of Arab ‘Beaten Up’ by BtS Spokesman

Breaking the Silence spokesperson Dean Issacharoff is absolutely determined to prove he was violent against innocent Arabs while serving in the IDF and therefore must go to jail – so now B’Tselem, yet another foreign funded NGO has jumped in to force a reluctant military prosecution to put him behind bars.
Issacharoff argued the government had picked up the wrong Arab, and that he had beaten up a different Arab.

On Monday, Breaking the Silence released a video that was filmed by an Arab volunteer for B’Tselem, another foreign-funded leftwing NGO. B’Tselem volunteers constantly videotape IDF soldiers in the hope of catching them doing something wrong.

On Monday, Breaking the Silence released a video that was filmed by an Arab volunteer for B’Tselem, another foreign-funded leftwing NGO. B’Tselem volunteers constantly videotape IDF soldiers in the hope of catching them doing something wrong.




In 2007, B'Tselem (another EU fuded "human rights" NGO) launched its innovative camera project. The organization distributes video cameras and provides training to Palestinians living in areas in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip where tensions are high and clashes are commonplace.

According to its website:
Video footage collected by volunteers provides ongoing documentation of human rights violations and the cameras expose the Israeli and the international publics to the reality of life under occupation.

Footage taken by the volunteers is frequently broadcast by Israeli and international media, exposing incidents that previously remained concealed.

In June 2009, the project won the British One World Media Award for its groundbreaking work in the field of citizen journalism. B'Tselem was awarded the prize in the “special award” category, given to an outstanding media project or organization working on the ground in the developing world, which has made a real impact on the lives of those living and working around them. "

Of course all of that is aimed to fuel the fire and the confrontation in the voltile region. Damaging images that show the violation of native European human rights by Muslims invaders are strictly censored.

Legal expert on surrealistic phenomenon

Exonerated, to his chagrin

Professor Asher Maoz

Such a surrealistic phenomenon is seldom seen in these parts. Police investigators, looking into allegations of serious misconduct on the part of a soldier, discover that the incident in question never happened. The prosecution decides to close the case due to lack of guilt, but instead of the defendant celebrating, he and his friends lament the exoneration.

The incident began when Breaking the Silence disseminated a video of Lt. (res.) Dean Issacharoff confessing to abusing a Palestinian who had resisted being handcuffed. For those wondering why Issacharoff would condemn himself in this fashion, it has emerged that when he doesn't serve in the IDF reserves, he serves as spokesperson for the anti-Israel nongovernmental organization. The organization is vilified for spreading anonymous "testimony," which makes it impossible to investigate and prosecute soldiers who transgressed or to disprove the charges. Indeed, the organization opens the video by saying it contains "chilling testimony of an IDF officer who served in Hebron, who attests to viciously assaulting a Palestinian for no reason and without being asked to do so."

The purpose behind publishing this "difficult and painful testimony" becomes apparent during the video's epilogue. "Has Dean been investigated for his actions?" the organization asks, "Is he a danger to the public, as claimed by the prosecutor in the trial of IDF soldier Elor Azaria?" And Breaking the Silence vowed: "More to follow…"

And more did indeed follow. The attorney general ordered an investigation, leading to the subsequent plot twist. Instead of rejoicing that the video prompted an investigation, Breaking the Silence's Executive Director Avner Gvaryahu objected to the "political investigation" and promised that "hundreds of former soldiers who have broken the silence would be happy to come and testify and expose what [Justice Minister Ayelet] Shaked and her friends are trying to hide."

This is an odd claim to be sure, as among those "hundreds of soldiers" only Issacharoff has come forward. Gvaryahu's gripe was supported by leftist groups, who said the goal of the investigation was to "intimidate and frighten critics of the occupation from using their voices."

At the same time, it was leaked that the investigation "wouldn't lead anywhere" because "it was unreasonable" to expect the police to locate the allegedly abused Palestinian detainee – and that without a complainant there could be no conviction.

The Azaria trial should have taught Breaking the Silence that when a crime against a Palestinian is exposed – and not by B'Tselem, either – the authorities investigate it thoroughly without waiting for a formal complaint. In the case of Azaria specifically, the defendant was tried and punished. Breaking the Silence, however, underestimated the investigative acumen of the police.

Investigators found the Palestinian, who confirmed he was indeed detained and handcuffed after he and his friends threw rocks at IDF soldiers, but was not beaten, was not injured, did not bleed and did not pass out. His version was substantiated by testimonies from Issacharoff's comrades, who were with him at the time of the alleged incident. It appears these horrific acts never occurred. It is uncommon to find such compatibility between the IDF's version and that of the Palestinian "victim."

Under these circumstances, as stated, the case was closed due to a lack of guilt. Rather than revel at dodging the same fate as Azaria, Issacharoff's attorney, Gaby Lasky, remonstrated: "We want to go to trial, where it will be possible to discuss the evidence possessed by all the sides, in an open and public manner and prove [Issacharoff's] claims."

How strange. When police investigators concluded, based on the gathered testimonies, that Issacharoff did not commit the alleged crime, the prosecution should have put him on trial anyway just so the court could "prove his claims?" And how would such a trial go? Would the prosecution argue that Issacharoff is innocent while his defense attorneys try proving his guilt?

Lasky is too experienced an attorney to pursue such a trial. Anyone studying for the bar exam, not to mention any first-year law student, knows it is a terrible idea. She knows she cannot bring the matter before the court.

Issacharoff's subordinates and commanders released a video in which they denied his allegations and called him a liar. Issacharoff will sue them for defamation of character and let the court discuss the matter "openly and publicly," and determine if he indeed transgressed. Perhaps Issacharoff should also sue the Palestinian he allegedly abused for essentially calling him a liar as well.

Professor Asher Maoz is the dean of the School of Law at the Peres Academic Center.

#14864610
Watch it and weep, noir:


Also, Breaking the Silence are a great organization. 8)

Even if a soldier lied about beating up a Palestinian, that wouldn't be the death of human rights issues in Palestine, since millions of Palestinians still lack them, which is why they'll always be an issue and which is why we'll always talk about them, including Israeli soldiers like those within Breaking the Silence.

You can't polish a turd, noir.
#14864788
The video I posted showed how the OP is bullshit.

You can call me names but you can't change reality.

If there were no human rights issues in Palestine (lol) can you explain why Boycott from Within became an organization? Here you go:


I mean, of all the arguments you are willing to make, claiming there are no humans rights abuses in Palestine has got to be the dumbest.
By Sivad
#14864818
noir wrote: Germany is using the Palestinians to settle its historic account with the Jews.


:knife:
User avatar
By noir
#14865055
Who is discrediting Israel goverement policy? Haaretz the paper who is owned by (previously) German Nazi family, Dumont. Read carefully the propaganda points "In their defense, Breaking the Silence representatives maintain they have nothing against the Israeli army, but only against the occupation, and that in the digital era, it is impossible to prevent foreign individuals and organizations from accessing the sort of testimonies they collect."

These German Palestinan alliance has long history. During the Third Reich

In June 1939, Hans Piekenbrock, the director of military intelligence in the Abwehr, wrote to its chief, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, that "through his middle man, the Grand Mufti has conveyed his sincere thanks for the support given to him so far. It was only as a result of the money we gave to him that it was possible to carry out the revolt in Palestine."78 The Germans sent arms shipments to Palestine by way of Iraq and Saudi Arabia with agreement of these governments. They sent money to finance the Palestine revolt and intensified contacts with anti-British military and circles close to King Farouk in Egypt. After the Munich conference of October 1938, the Nazi Party organization in Palestine aided Arab guerilla bands.79

Source: Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by JEFFREY HERF



Haaretz

How Israel is trying to break Breaking the Silence – and how it could backfire

https://www.haaretz.com/misc/iphone-art ... m-1.824227

On a whole other level, however, the case of Issacharoff raises more fundamental questions about Israel’s 50-year-old occupation and its corrosive effects on society, among them: Who is to blame when soldiers serving among a hostile population in occupied territory act badly – the soldiers or the state that sent them there? Should Israeli soldiers speak out about the atrocities they witness during their service at the risk of tarnishing the image of the state? Can an investigation launched by a right-wing politician who harbors hostility toward anti-occupation organizations – in this case, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked – really be undertaken with neutrality?

In their defense, Breaking the Silence representatives maintain they have nothing against the Israeli army, but only against the occupation, and that in the digital era, it is impossible to prevent foreign individuals and organizations from accessing the sort of testimonies they collect.

Last April, Netanyahu canceled a meeting with German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel after the latter held a meeting with representatives of Breaking the Silence while on a trip to Israel.

The German angle to the story doesn’t end there. Jeremy Issacharoff, father of the former combat soldier at the center of the storm, is Israel’s newly appointed ambassador to Berlin. In recent days, Israeli right-wingers have been waging a campaign on social media to get him ousted. His crime: guilt by association.

Avner Gvaryahu, executive director of Breaking the Silence, said, “Our first and most important mission now is to prove that the whole process was politicized.”

“Once the entire picture is clear,” he added, “it will be clear as daylight that what happened here, in the best-case scenario, was pure negligence and an attempt to please a senior politician, and in the worst-case scenario, a bid to persecute soldiers who oppose the occupation.”

If Gvaryahu is ultimately proven right, the latest attempt to break Breaking the Silence could backfire, big time.
User avatar
By noir
#14868438
EU's Front organizations. 230 EU's funded so called Human Rights Organisations, registered in Israel, were approached by Palestinians to sue the Palestinian Authority for kidnapping, beating, rape and torture refused. Why? Because it involved suing the PA and not the Israeli State. When Amnesty International, the biggest Human Rights organisation were approached, they said that they “didn’t have the means”.

In the past the fascists and communists regimes called this trick "front organization" today it's labaled by EU as "civil society" and Human Rights organizations.

User avatar
By noir
#14872252
The Germans are the greatest experts of using front organization under cover of Human Rights NGO

http://m.jpost.com/International/German ... oup-518316

Germany uses EU funds to finance extremist Iranian regime-controlled group
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL
12/17/17

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (R) chats with Ahmed Jibril, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). (photo credit: REUTERS) Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (R) chats with Ahmed Jibril, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). (photo credit: REUTERS)
'The money appears to be going to a radical Iranian front group...the NGOs receiving ‘human rights’ grants are reportedly linked to PFLP terrorists.'


BERLIN – The German government provides €283,150 to a radical pro-Iranian regime Shi’ite umbrella organization as part of a program to counter extremism. The funds will support the activities of the umbrella organization the Shi’ite communities of Germany (IGS) until the end of 2019, according to a Friday article in Bild newspaper.

The paper wrote that money from the EU’s Internal Security Fund will be administered by Germany’s federal criminal agency for the Shi’ite umbrella organization. The aim of the grant to the pro-Iranian regime group is to promote “deradicalization” and “prevent extremism,” according to Bild.

Hamburg’s most recent intelligence report from 2016, which monitors threats to Germany’s democracy, includes a reference to the IGS and a number of its members’ organizations, including the Islamic Center of Hamburg. The German government classifies the Shi’ite umbrella group as “influenced by extremism,” it said.



Hamid Reza Torabi, head of the Islamic Academy of Germany – part of the Iranian regime-owned Islamic Center of Hamburg – held up a poster in downtown Berlin during the 2016 al-Quds rally urging the “rejection of Israel” and terming the Jewish state “illegal and criminal.” The Islamic Center buses pro-Hezbollah and pro-Iranian regime members and activists to the annual al-Quds Day rally calling for Israel’s destruction. The rally is also a hotbed of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the Jewish state.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, the President of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that “this is yet another example demonstrating that European government funding for NGOs is entirely out of control. Every year, the EU and individual state governments throw hundreds of millions annually at fringe NGOs without due diligence.”

He added: “In this case, the money appears to be going to a radical Iranian front group – in other cases, the NGOs receiving ‘human rights’ grants are reportedly linked to PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] terrorists. The excuse that governments fund projects and not NGOs themselves are a transparent fiction. Officials who channel money to a radical Iran-linked NGO for ‘deradicalization’ must be held accountable.”



The Bild reported that €19,739 are being processed for a transfer to the Shi’ite umbrella group. The pro-mullah regime organization wants to implement a program titled: “Extreme Engaged! Competence Program for Young Muslims.”

The German-Iranian public intellectual Nasrin Amirsedghi told the Post that the “IGS is directly supported by the mullahs. All Shi’ite communities in Germany are dependent on Iran. What is not understandable is that the German authorities sponsor the associations with tax-payer money, which support Islamic extremists and terrorists across the world. How blind can one be in Germany is a puzzle for me.” Amirsedghi has written extensively on Iranian human rights violations and is an expert on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Shi’ite umbrella organization declared on its website that “Jerusalem is forever the capital of Palestine.” The Shi’ite religious extremists also posted an anti-gay marriage article on its association website.

The Iranian Ayatollah Reza Ramezani is a member of the umbrella group and serves as the representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Sonja Kock, a spokeswoman for the German Interior Ministry, defended the Merkel administration’s work with the IGS and other Muslim groups in the Shi’ite umbrella organization because the funds are designed to “support a strong Muslim engagement against Islamic extremism.”

She told the Post the Germany’s sponsorship of the program means the funded Muslim groups will “play an essential role as civil society actors.”

She said the intelligence agency reports on Islamic groups can be “assessed differently.”

Kock added that financial aid to the IGS does not contravene public funding.

The IGS a did not immediately respond to queries by press time.
EU-BREXIT

I probably won't be able to find clear statemen[…]

No, it's biologically hardwired, because people h[…]

Atheism is Evil

And on your planet, that might be relevant to the[…]

People get banned from Pofo for violating rule 2.[…]