Amnesty International UK branch signals support for anti-Zionist extremism with endorsement of Israel apartheid analogy
In a deeply disturbing move that marks the end of any pretence at impartiality as well as another new low in British attitudes to Israel, Amnesty International’s UK branch has now indicated that it endorses the notion that Israel is an apartheid state.
For an event scheduled for October 28 entitled “Discriminatory and unsustainable: Water and politics in Israel & the Occupied Palestinian Territories” Amnesty has revealed that its keynote speaker will be Ben White, author of “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide” which was published in June by Pluto Press.
On its website, Amnesty is promoting White’s book and describes him as “a writer and freelance journalist specialising in Palestine/Israel.”
In fact, White is an anti-Israeli ideologue whose book is riddled with distortions aimed at smearing the Jewish state by association with apartheid South Africa. In promoting his book and honouring him as keynote speaker, Amnesty has endorsed the legitimacy of the apartheid analogy in relation to Israel and thus placed itself inside the extremist wing of the anti-Israel camp.
Amnesty has simultaneously put itself in the company of far-Left and militantly anti-Zionist groups such as the charity War on Want which has been the subject of investigations by the UK’s main charity watchdog, the Charity Commission, after it too promoted White’s book at an event over the summer.
Until recently, the use of the apartheid analogy to demonise and deligitimise Israel was the preserve of mavericks on the fringes whom mainstream organisations would have shunned as untouchable.
But in the last few months and years it has gradually gained currency in the mainstream through the efforts of NGOs, Muslim groups, the Guardian newspaper and high profile international figures such as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter.
The Nazi analogy has also begun to move from the fringes towards the centreground and was widely used to attack Israel during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009.
A once respected human rights organisation (of which I was once a member), Amnesty International’s credibility has been severely damaged by its anti-Israel stance as many observers, including Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, have remarked.
However, the latest move marks a point of departure since it takes Amnesty out of the ranks of NGOs which are merely characterised by anti-Israeli leanings and places it inside the realm of anti-Israel activism.
Human Rights Watch has moved in a similar direction. It admitted earlier this year that it had used its disputes with pro-Israel groups as a marketing tool for its fund raising efforts in Saudi Arabia.
As I have remarked before, the anti-Israeli agenda is not simply a problem for Israel. Its adoption also has the effect of corrupting those who participate in it. Few examples are more illustrative of such dangers than the corruption of the global human rights agenda by Human Rights Watch, the UN Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International.
It is a depressing and shameful state of affairs. But since so few people (in Britain and Europe at least) seem motivated to do anything substantial to address it, it is likely to get worse rather than better as time goes by. I really wonder where this is all going.
Anyone who wants a fuller discussion of such matters should get a copy of my new book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel. Click here to read about it and purchase it:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Beyond-Pale-Europes-Problem/dp/0297856642/ref=pd_sim_b_1
Tags: Israel
October 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Ben White is the “Palestine/Israel specialist” who wrote that he doesn’t consider himself an anti-semite but can understand why others are. Amnesty International is beyond salvage.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The reason that there is an extreme lack of interest in Europe is horribly simple. Therfe is a collective sigh of relief that it is no longer unacceptable to show one’s “natural” dislike for Jews.
Just call it anti-Zionism and it’s instantly acceptable, in fact desirable on the Islington dining circuit.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The last two issues of the Amnesty magazine in the UK have featured strongly anti-Israel pieces. I responded to the first and my letter was published (the full letter is here: http://www.ericlee.info/2009/07/an_open_letter_to_amnesty_inte.html ). The most recent issue of the magazine includes a long interview with Noam Chomsky. Chomsky of course comments on Israel, and this might even be legitimate if he spoke about human rights, but he doesn’t. It’s just the usual Chomsky anti-Israel rant. What this has to do with human rights is not clear.
The problem with Amnesty is that unlike, say, War on Want, it has done and continues to do an enormous amount of good in the world. It has always had an active branch in Israel (I was an active member). It is a tragedy that at least in the UK, if not globally, it is pursuing an anti-Israel agenda that has nothing to do with human rights.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am
“Amnesty International UK branch signals support for anti-Zionist extremism with endorsement of Israel apartheid analogy”
Yes, well, this passage of the Christiasons could have come straight from White’s book:
“Realities are very different today, and a recognition of Zionism’s racist bases, as well as an understanding of the racist policies being played out in the occupied territories are essential if there is to be any hope at all of achieving a peaceful, just, and stable resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The egg of Palestine has been permanently scrambled, and it is now increasingly the case that, as Zionism is recognized as the driving force in the occupied territories as well as inside Israel proper, pre-1967 Israel can no longer be considered in isolation. It can no longer be allowed simply to go its own way as a Jewish-majority state, a state in which the circumstances are “right” for ignoring Zionism’s fundamental racism.”
October 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“Human Rights Watch has moved in a similar direction.”
Richard Goldstone was a member of the board of Human Rights Watch. He resigned in 2009, shortly before he accepted the position as head of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.
An excellent piece by Warren Goldstein on Goldstone’s “mission”. Warren Goldstein has a PhD in Human Rights Law and is the chief rabbi of South Africa:
It looks like law, but it’s just politics
‘The Goldstone Mission is a disgrace to the most basic notions of justice, equality and the rule of law. And it is dangerous. Injustice will only lead to more death and destruction.
The Talmud says “The world stands on three things: truth, justice and peace.” These three values are linked. There can never be peace without justice and truth.
The Goldstone Mission is unjust and wanting in truth. It has, therefore, harmed the prospects for peace in the Middle East.’
http://tinyurl.com/ygra3zt
October 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Amnesty International’s UK branch is holding another event about Israel in November 2009 entitled “Palestine in Pieces: Graphic Perspectives on the Israeli Occupation”. The keynote speakers at that event are Kathleen and Bill Christison. According to habibi at Harry’s Place:
1) ‘The Christisons are Israel hating loons. You will find their work in the pages of Counterpunch, the blood libel publisher.
Here they dare to speak up about American Jews and “dual loyalty”, which is actually OK as a topic, just like “wry jokes about Congress being Israeli-occupied territory”, in part because a Jewish “friend” agrees with them.’
2) ‘You see, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple. Just denigrate Zionism as racism and get rid of that damned Jewish majority problem. Like, for peace, man.’
http://tinyurl.com/yzekbeq
From another piece at Harry’s Place about the “anti-Zionist” activities of Amnesty International’s UK branch:
‘The CST Blog has a comment about a blog entry by Amnesty’s Neil Durkin, in which he makes light of the genuine nervousness of many Jews, when it emerged that Human Rights Watch’s Marc Garlasco was a collector of Nazi memorabilia: which he finds “cool”.
Durkin’s view, apparently, is that this concern is manufactured and false, and is an attempt to deflect attention from the conduct of the Israeli state. This is a version of the “Livingstone Formula”: that Jews rattle the chains of the Holocaust in order to get away with terrible crimes.’
http://tinyurl.com/yzpeame
October 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Peter, it’s funny that John Lee Barnes of the BNP wrote just recently how he could also ‘understand’ why people would sympathise with the eliminationist anti-Semitism of Nazism, as a result of the sins committed by communist Jews in the Soviet Union. Now we have the new ‘progressive’ version of the same hate and bigotry from Ben White. Amnesty International is now in bed with the devil and history will judge it accordingly.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Jonny this only seems funny but in the reality it is perfectly logical. BNP and the selfdeclared friends of the Palestinians are two sides of the same coin. As the BNP wouldn’t give a rusty nail for the fate of the Soviet victims of the Communist Jews, Ben White and his ilk don’t give a broken bedpan to the wellbeing of the Palestinians. They cynically exploit their sufferings and hardships for their own purposes and anti-semite agenda.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:02 am
I asked Amnesty for a ‘right of rebuttal’ at the Ben White event but was refused, see the article in this week’s Jewish Chronicle.
http://thejc.com/news/uk-news/21026/board-blasts-israel%E2%80%99s-maverick-defender
This is despite inviting Amnesty’s Kristyan Benedict to the ZF launch and discussion of Robin Shepherd’s book in London (on Wednesday).
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/03/review-of-a-state-beyond-the-pale-by-robin-shepherd/
On the subject of the despicable attack in the JC article by someone who is supposed to be on the same side, I was given an hour before their deadline to respond, at a time when I was busy with my dayjob. Maybe I’m a cynic - but I wonder whether the timing was deliberate on his part. I have three points to make in addition to the ’sour grapes’ one made in my quote in the article.
First I was accused of “damaging both Israel’s case and beyond”. I fear my accuser is on dangerous ground. I can truly say that I have never seen him in print, in blogs or on TV, or heard him on the radio or speaking out at hostile meetings. The old line about ‘working behind the scenes’ is very convenient as an unverifiable assertion but it won’t wash I’m afraid, especially given the other unverifiable assertion in the attack on me (”his tactics have been the cause of many complaints to the Board”). My accuser is an old hand at unverifiable assertions. In the Jewish Telegraph in 2008 (sorry, no link available) he criticised ZF Chairman Andrew Balcombe for living in Israel. He said “Having a Chairman living abroad is an insult to the people in this country who wish to be part of a vibrant organisation supporting Israel. Many other people feel the same way but are too afraid to speak out. Andrew has a hell of a lot to answer for and I challenge him to name me one other national British organisation that is run from abroad. Sooner or later he will trip himself up, and be forced to resign, or he will lead the ZF into oblivion.” (The unverifiable assertion is in bold).
Second look at those two words “…and beyond”. They are clearly carefully chosen. What could they mean? Here’s an interpretation an old friend has suggested. There is a long and ignoble history of the people who run the Board opposing any form of Jewish activism that they do not control or originate, most particulary activism which increases the blood pressure of antisemites. Those in charge at first opposed the Zionist movement and after the Second World War their successors opposed the 43 Group.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/16/the-43-groups-final-reunion/
The “..and beyond” is a coded way of suggesting that by speaking out at meetings to rebut Israel-based antisemitism, I myself am the cause of it and that it would be far better if I stayed stumm.
If that is indeed what my attacker has in mind, how DARE he …
Third let’s look at the verdict of my effectiveness from the estimable veteran advocate Isi Leibler, formerly of Australia, now of Israel.
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/
(My Australian friends tell me he more than anyone was responsible for turning around the standing of Israel in Australia).
Leibler wrote in the Jerusalem Post last week lamenting the ‘erosion and marginalisation of most Diaspora Zionist organisations, with a few notable exceptions.’ I asked him if the UK ZF was one of his exceptions.
His response is quoted with permission: “For many years the UK ZF was low profile and inconsequential. It is only in recent times since you and a few others stood up to the trembling Israelites purporting to lead the Jewish community that it became one of the exceptions I mentioned”
So much for “damaging Israel’s case” (me) and “tripping himself up” and “leading the ZF into oblivion” (Andrew).
And I wonder who Leibler has in mind when he speaks of “trembling Israelites”.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Robin Shepherd’s book is as oustanding as Ben White’s is appalling.
The outstanding:
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/03/review-of-a-state-beyond-the-pale-by-robin-shepherd/
The appalling:
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/lies-damn-lies-and-the-apartheid-analogy/
October 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
“My accuser is an old hand at unverifiable assertions.”
He sure is. On the other hand, this is very funny:
Race is on to lead the Board
“Jerry Lewis, a former vice-president of the Board and a deputy for more than 30 years, said that he had been “approached by many deputies hoping I would consider standing” but he declined to say whether he would.”
http://tinyurl.com/yl4e68z
And it’s a good job you’re not a woman:
Jewish leader barred after ’swearing’ at woman
“One of the most senior figures in British Jewry - the vice president of the Board of Deputies - has been barred from its offices for allegedly using obscene language against a female member of staff at a dinner in honour of Nelson Mandela.
One of the most senior figures in British Jewry - the vice president of the Board of Deputies - has been barred from its offices for allegedly using obscene language against a female member of staff at a dinner in honour of Nelson Mandela.
Jerry Lewis, who was elected to his post only three weeks ago, must now get permission before visiting the board’s headquarters in London, even though he heads up the community issues division.
Mr Lewis is alleged to have launched a highly offensive verbal attack on two female members of staff at a dinner in honour of Mr Mandela hosted by the board in April. It is claimed Mr Lewis, a journalist, lost his cool when he was excluded from the main dining hall and ordered to sit with other journalists in a balcony.”
http://tinyurl.com/yl9csdk
October 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am
http://jhozf.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/israels-maverick-defender-blasts-mr-macavity/
October 18th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
I’m not surprised about AI — we used to be contributors in the good old days, but I still remember when we stopped our contributions: it was in the mid-90s, we lived in DC back then, and I got one of the AI letters with material on their work. They listed all sorts of human rights abuses in Africa, Iran, etc. — and of course Israel was right there, among countries where dissidents regularly were tortured to death, women raped, etc. But AI thought they should list conditions in Israeli prisons among those abuses — well, that was a time when somebody like the child murderer Samir Kuntar was in an Israeli prison: first he decided he wanted to get married, which he did, then he wanted to get divorced, which he did, the Israeli state paid his Israeli Arab wife alimony, and then he took courses at the Open University. In the end, he was exchanged for 2 kidnapped Israeli hostages: turned out they were long dead, while Kuntar was well-fed and bursting with energy to go on fighting the evil Zionist entity…
Jonathan, while I obviously know very little about the sentiments prevalent in the Jewish community in London, I have to say that from an outsider’s perspective, it’s hard to see how you can be criticized for speaking out assertively about the rampant delegitimization of Israel — and not just of Israel: I mean, after all, London is a place where polite society thinks antisemitism is an artform, as Churchill’s play illustrated. I remember a piece by the Guardian readers’ editor responding to a related query, where she explained her stance as “accepting” that some people think it was an antisemitic play, but she just didn’t see any reason why that should bother her… Maybe your critics think it’s better to accept such attitudes, not complain too much, not make a fuss about a little play here, an editorial there, an “anti-apartheid” fundraiser today, a boycott call tomorrow, etc.?
October 19th, 2009 at 12:51 am
From Jonathan Hoffman’s link above (#12):
“Last week he insisted on recalling and reissuing an attachment to a Board email because it didn’t have his full title on……”
Lemme guess, it begins with a “K”.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Hi Robin, you might find this useful and interesting:
http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/editorial/38-editors-choice/2033-amnesty-water-report-waterboards-the-truth.html
Z