European Govts Fund NGO ‘Lawfare’ vs. Israelis
NGO Monitor revealed yesterday that the Palestinian NGO Al-Mezan, behind the effort to arrest Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, is funded by a number of European governments. Although the UK authorities rejected the attempt, NGO Monitor notes that Al-Mezan’s role is another example of the abuse of European taxpayer funding in the anti-Israel ‘lawfare’ campaign.
Â• Al-Mezan’s core donors include the Norwegian government and a joint framework including Sweden, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark known as NDC. Additional project donors to Al-Mezan include the European Commission, Ford Foundation, Diakonia (Sweden) and Trocaire (Ireland)
Â• Al-Mezan’s activities reflect a consistent anti-Israel agenda and demonization, including claims of Israeli ‘apartheid’.
Â• This case is the latest stage in the NGO-led ‘lawfare’ campaign. Under the faÃ§ade of judicial processes, NGOs utilize universal jurisdiction provisions to promote and justify the isolation and boycotts of Israel and its leaders.
Â• UK courts have rejected all previous NGO cases against Israeli leaders, showing the emphasis on publicity. Previous UK cases include those against Doron Almog and Shaul Mofaz, involving Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR). In November 2008 and July 2009, the UK Court of Appeal dismissed cases brought by Al Haq against the UK government to end export licenses to Israel.
NGO Monitor’s President, Prof Gerald Steinberg said, “European governments that funnel taxpayer funds to these radical NGOs are paying for the demonization of Israel, and fueling the conflict.
Al-Mezan has joined other NGOs in using the courts to promote anti-Israel bias. In addition to the attack on Ehud Barak, Al-Mezan also contributed to the foundations of the Goldstone report, which is another form of ‘lawfare’”.
Please click here or the link below to view NGO Monitor’s in-depth ‘Lawfare’ study
A Wall St Journal op-ed on the dangers of ‘Lawfare’ can be viewed here
NGO Monitor was founded to promote transparency, critical analysis and debate on the political role of human rights organizations. For more information, see our website at
Reader comments on this item
|michal||Oct 1, 2009 09:45|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.