Oxfam, Amnesty, 14 other charities call for legitimisation of Hamas, produce joint report approving language that says Gazans treated like “animals”
It is time for a boycott after all. At the end of this piece you will find the names of 16 charities including Amnesty International UK and Oxfam International that have clubbed together to produce a report today about the situation in Gaza which would be laughable if it wasn’t so appalling. Go to their websites, write to their directors and, where appropriate, contact relevant government offices asking to have their charitable status removed. Really. Do it. Here are five reasons why:
1) The report calls for the Middle East Quartet (EU, UN, Russia, United States) to “begin political dialogue with all Palestinian parties”, ending what it calls “the failed policy of non-engagement”.
Sorry, but who do these charities think they are in saying that refusing to legitimise vile anti-Semitic, anti-Western terror groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad has “failed”? It has certainly failed Hamas and Islamic Jihad who are now more or less contained and lack international legitimacy. I think that’s a good thing. If the charities do not, they should explain themselves.
2) In similar vein, they should be asked to explain why, despite a few pro-forma references to Israel’s security and other references to rockets, their 18 page report failed to mention the words “terrorism”, “terror” or “terrorist” one single time, thus eradicating the context of Israel’s entire Gaza policy. Was this a product of ignorance, bigotry or both?
3) The report calls on all sides to end violence and says that Israel “must abide by its international obligations as the Occupying Power and reverse its policy of collective punishment by ending the blockade and opening all crossings. It must also stop unlawful incursions and attacks inside Gaza”. Three points here: a) Why is it these charities’ place to describe anti-terror measures as “collective punishment”. b) Why should Israel end sanctions against a regime which clearly calls for Israel’s destruction? c) What, pray tell, are they suggesting in saying that Israel should stop “attacks inside Gaza”? Does this mean that Israel should just sit back and allow terror groups to rebuild their infrastructure?
4) The report approvingly quotes Jimmy Carter, a well known Israel hater. What is more important is that the charities approvingly quote him as saying the following:
“Tragically, the international community largely ignores the cries for help, while the citizens of
Gaza are treated more like animals than human beings… Never before in history has a large
community been savaged by bombs and missiles and then deprived of the means to repair itself.
The responsibility for this terrible human rights crime lies in Jerusalem, Cairo, Washington, and
throughout the international community.”
Let’s go first for the “never before in history” refrain. Now, one presumes that even someone as dim-witted as Jimmy Carter has heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki since one of his own predecessors gave the orders to obliterate them. As a consequence, of course, there wasn’t a lot to repair and it was more a question of starting from scratch. But the details are of less consequence than the hyperbole intimating crimes of a world-historical magnitude. This smacks of fanaticism and hysteria. Could the charities explain why they have made themselves a part of such fanaticism and hysteria?
Secondly, is the charge that Gazans “are treated more like animals than human beings” intended to associate Israel with Nazism? The charge that one treats ones enemies as sub-human is one that is associated above all with the Nazis. These are Carter’s words but the charities quoted them and thus offered them legitimacy. They should be asked to explain themselves.
5) The report says that Israel should be pressed by the international community “to provide compensation for damage caused during Operation Cast Lead and other Israeli military actions and donors should seek compensation for damage to their aid-funded projects in Gaza.”
I had to re-read this one a few times to be sure that I hadn’t missed something. But no, that is what it said. So, here goes: Would the mooted compensation take the form of Israel rearming Hamas and paying for the import of more arms from Iran? Do the charities believe that the United States and Britain should have paid compensation to Germany for the destruction of cities such as Dresden during World War II? Is the person who lead-authored this report a certified lunatic?
I could go on. But I trust that the picture is clear. Obviously, aid groups have the right to comment on humanitarian issues wherever they may be. And if Israel’s security policy towards Gaza is able to change in such a way that the economic and social situation improves while ensuring that terrorism is not once again unleashed against Israeli civilians, that is to be welcomed. But until the terror networks and the ideologies that sustain them are dismantled it is not easy to see how significant progress can be made.
In sharp contrast to that line of thinking, this report is a quotable example of a complete moral and intellectual failure to deal with the complexities of Israel’s stand-off against Hamas with even the slightest degree of seriousness.
It shows almost total contempt for basic standards of balance and contextualised analysis. It is wilfully ignorant. It is peppered with hyperbole. It is, in short, a travesty of what recognised charitable institutions should be about.
But don’t get mad, get even. On page four of the report, in the context of calling for the MidEast Quartet to force Israel to change its policy on Gaza, it says: “There must be no more excuses.” With the addition of the words, “for our disgraceful behaviour”, I couldn’t agree more. Here are their names. Write to them and complain.
Amnesty International UK, Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), CAFOD (UK), CCFD Terre Solidaire (France), Christian Aid, Church of Sweden, Diakonia (Sweden), Finn Church Aid (Finland), Medical Aid for Palestinians, medico international (Germany), medico international schweiz (Switzerland), Mercy Corps,
MS ActionAid Denmark, Oxfam International, Trocaire (Ireland), United Civilians for Peace (a coalition of Dutch organisations - Oxfam Novib, Cordaid, ICCO, and IKV Pax Christi)
To read the full report, click here:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/conflict_disasters/downloads/failing_gaza.pdf
And, if you’re looking to buy yourself or someone else a present on this subject, click here to buy my book:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
The blatant bias of some of these charities is why the BBC refused to show the DEC Appeal
(nb Amnesty International is not a UK Charity although it has an affiliated organisation that is)
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
The BBC are already bigging up the report:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/12/peace-on-earth-goodwill-to-hamas.html
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
No surprise that Chris Patten comes out in support of those charities:
We are failing Gaza
http://tinyurl.com/yb6lze3
Everything you need to know about Chris Patten, at least within this context, can be obtained from the following:
1) The British Syrian Society
is pleased to invite you to
The Sir David Gore-Booth Memorial Lecture
Wednesday 11 October 2006
By The Rt Hon Lord Chris Patten of Barnes CH
http://tinyurl.com/yk27xxc
2) “The money that I spent in Palestine on behalf of European voters and taxpayers over five years as a European commissioner has drained away into the blood-soaked sand. Many projects funded by European taxpayers have been reduced to rubble by the Israeli Defence Forces. Is Europe’s role in the region to be the paymaster for intransigence and the use of disproportionate force?”
http://tinyurl.com/ycdwxgx
3) Israel faces rage over ‘massacre’
London and Brussels politicians demand UN investigation of Jenin allegations
“The European Union’s external relations commissioner, Chris Patten, in an interview with the Guardian, said Israel must accept a UN investigation of alleged atrocities against Palestinians or face “colossal damage” to its reputation.”
http://tinyurl.com/yang8hv
—————–
From a piece by Melanie Phillips in 2006
“Has there ever been an obsession like this? At the University of Oxford an entire week is being devoted to Jew-hatred, dedicated to declaring Israel as an apartheid state, with speakers, films and more designed to vilify Israel. Here is the agenda for this carnival of hatred and lies, staged by the Palestinian society:”
http://tinyurl.com/y9ez3uv
Can you guess the identity of the Chancellor of Oxford University at the time?
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
It is disappointing to see this kind of reaction from Finland, they should be more realistic about the impact violence has upon a society.
As an interesting anecdote: during the Soviet war of aggression against Finland in 1939, the Finnish high command sat down and evaluated the situation to see what they could do. They found that the only way the could hope to keep the more numerous Soviets at bay was to isolate entire units of them and kill every single individual in the unit. This was the so called “Motti taktikki”; an incredibly aggressive and high risk, all-or-nothing strategy. This is what war may bring you to, and this is what most Finns, I am certain, know.
Finland owes its continued sovereignity to the “motti taktikki”. They know better than to criticize Israel for imposing security measures to which there is not realistic alternative.
Regards
Kristian
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 am
Fair enough I guess but I could not help notice your one commentator so far is Mr Hoffman..so referring to your comment here:
“Secondly, is the charge that Gazans “are treated more like animals than human beings” intended to associate Israel with Nazism? The charge that one treats ones enemies as sub-human is one that is associated above all with the Nazis. These are Carter’s words but the charities quoted them and thus offered them legitimacy. They should be asked to explain themselves.”
which reminded me of a recent posting by Mr Hoffman…
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/12/sub-humans-commit-an-appalling-crime/
maybe you should ask Mr Hoffman to legitimise his comments re Sub-humans….? in the name of balance ofcourse…..
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:43 am
Robin - actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in fewer deaths that the firebombing of other major Japanese cities. In addition,according to James Brady, in “imperial Cruise”, Teddy Roosevelt, in pursuit of his racial theories, gave the orders that resulted in the slaughter of 250,000 Philippine natives in the early 1900’s.
Jimmy Carter has a cheek opening his mouth about anything at all. he is, of course, a paid shill of the Arab lobby, who bailed him and his peanut farm out care of the BCCI scandal.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
When will the common people ralize that the “noble” and “whiter than white” Amnesty International (and Oxfam, let alone the Swedish Church theological Jew-haters et co.) are not actually what they seem and try to sell themselves - for roughly two decades now. They are nothing less or more than hyper-politicized, far-left extremist partisan groups, the real-life agents of Hamas, who possibly harbor anti-Semitic feelings as well. Not being British myself I can’t do my part in contering them, but would encourage all of our allies to contact the relevant authorities.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“Robin - actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in fewer deaths that the firebombing of other major Japanese cities.”
Aside from the fact that that, if true, made it no less reprehensible,
this is what our host actually wrote:
“Now, one presumes that even someone as dim-witted as Jimmy Carter has heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki since one of his own predecessors gave the orders to obliterate them. As a consequence, of course, there wasn’t a lot to repair and it was more a question of starting from scratch.”
From an article about the Hiroshima bombing at Wikipedia:
“The radius of total destruction was about one mile (1.6 km), with resulting fires across 4.4 square miles (11 km2).[27] Americans estimated that 4.7 square miles (12 km2) of the city were destroyed. Japanese officials determined that 69% of Hiroshima’s buildings were destroyed and another 6–7% damaged.[5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima
And from an article about the Hiroshima bombing at an official US government website:
“Nearly every structure within one mile of ground zero was destroyed, and almost every building within three miles was damaged. Less than 10 percent of the buildings in the city survived without any damage, and the blast wave shattered glass in suburbs twelve miles away. The most common first reaction of those that were indoors even miles from ground zero was that their building had just suffered a direct hit by a bomb.”
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm
From an article about the Nagasaki bombing at the same US government website as directly above:
“Although the destruction at Nagasaki has generally received less worldwide attention than that at Hiroshima, it was extensive nonetheless. Almost everything up to half a mile from ground zero was completely destroyed, including even the earthquake-hardened concrete structures that had sometimes survived at comparable distances at Hiroshima. According to a Nagasaki Prefectural report “men and animals died almost instantly” within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of the point of detonation. Almost all homes within a mile and a half were destroyed, and dry, combustible materials such as paper instantly burst into flames as far away as 10,000 feet from ground zero. Of the 52,000 homes in Nagasaki, 14,000 were destroyed and 5,400 more seriously damaged. Only 12 percent of the homes escaped unscathed. The official Manhattan Engineer District report on the attack termed the damage to the two Mitsubishi plants “spectacular.” Despite the absence of a firestorm, numerous secondary fires erupted throughout the city. Fire-fighting efforts were hampered by water line breaks, and six weeks later the city was still suffering fromBodies in a trench, Nagasaki a shortage of water. A U.S. Navy officer who visited the city in mid-September reported that, even over a month after the attack, “a smell of death and corruption pervades the place.” As at Hiroshima, the psychological effects of the attack were undoubtedly considerable.”
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm
December 24th, 2009 at 4:04 am
I found an earth-shatteringly interesting summary of contemporary domestic (British) state of affaires from a commenter on Harry’s Blog. It jibes with issues concerning Islamic radicalism and threats to minority communities and British politics. I found this opinion very interesting. It is not part of the debate here, so I don’t expect that it will be published, but it’s worth a try. I hope I am not cheeky by doing this.
Stanislaw
23 December 2009, 12:47 pm
Sophia: “Doesn’t anybody in power (in Britain) see this?”
Anon: “The answer is not only do they see it [racism and religious etremism in certain mosques] and, they agree totally with it.”
I think ‘agree’ is mostly too strong, but I do think those in power and in the media are quite aware of it, and are either inclined to try and pretend it doesn’t exist, or that it may exist but that there are more important matters, and ones which almost justify or at least explain the ‘apparent’ anti-semitism, etc.
Andrew Coates’ link to the article on Red Pepper and Hizbollah is a good example of this. If you were to try and press the point on Hizbollah’s successful campaign to ban Anne Frank’s Diary from Lebanese schools, I suspect that the mental reasoning at Red Pepper is now along the lines of: “Well, the good Hizbollah does – wonderful social programmes, I hear, I wish our local council was as good, hahaha – amply outweighs any slightly, er, conservative, aspects, and okay they are pretty…. er, uncompromising on Jews, though I think they really mean just ‘Zionists’, and we have to, er, put this in a wider context and… really, why do Israel’s supporters have to be such a nuisance about this, it’s just a book. It’s part of some Middle Eastern cultures to ban some books. Er, what about Lady Chatterly’s Lover? That was banned. How are we any better? Anyway, why are Muslims being demonised again?”
When the funding for Hizb ut Tahrir controlled schools matter came up in Parliament, Gordon Brown’s disgraceful strawman response was:
“The vast majority of Muslims in our country are part of the law-abiding majority of this country and I don’t want it to be said that those people who are citizens of our country and hold the Muslim faith are to be held responsible for acts of terrorism.”
i.e. he implicitly accused Cameron of saying or implying that British Muslims in general were responsible for acts of terrorism. The predictable deflection: “Let’s not demonise Muslims” response almost always means overlooking, ignoring, or in some cases just about detectably resenting the Jews who are on the receiving end of the hate-speech which started the whole inconvenient matter. Note that Brown had absolutely nothing to say about Hizb ut Tahrir’s violent plans for Jews, which cameron drew attention to. Jews just don’t count much with Brown and co, and if they are irritating Labour’s Muslim postal-vote ’support’, then they are a positive nuisance.
The same was the case with references to killing homosexuals in the Undercover Mosque programme. When the authorities studiously ignore the original comments, and even criticize, portray as bigots or even threaten those who simply bring these teachings to light, then yes, the other minority is bound to feel threatened not just by the Islamists but by the state itself due to its bizarre ‘pact’ with said Islamists. It is also now quite common to dismiss or distrust support for, say, gay people or Jews or women under attack from such sources, as being motivated solely or mainly by a neo-con agenda. That is to say, for parts of the left, causes like gay rights, women rights, etc have become intrinsically suspect and something that many supposed progressives are apparently finding it harder and harder to believe in as worthy ends in themselves. They are presumed to be fronts, unwitting or not, for racism, Islamophobia, neconservatism etc. Whatever the progress of recent decades until recently, Jews, women and gay people are certainly now lower down the minority pecking order than Muslims or homophobic Africans, and slipping further.
I think anyone who is serious about halting the state-funding of the march of Islamism and the wider rise of ‘multicultural’ conservatism against Jews, gays, women et al – let alone its fundamental antipathy and antagonism towards middle-of-the-road British patriotism and values, should certainly now vote against Labour. So long as it’s not BNP, it hardly matters for whom else. The Labour Party needs to be wrecked, purged and reconstituted by secular British leftists, rather than carrying on as an unwitting front organisation for the forces of religious and ‘multicultural’ conservatism. Likewise, the police, CPS and courts need to be purged of their anti-British, pro-multicultural conservative strain, which has weirdly infected the liberal left and put them in many respects objectively to the right of the Tories.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
What’s arch is that Oxfam recently noted that their own pathological obsession with all things Dastardly and Jewish has actually harmed all their other efforts elsewhere in the world. There simply isn’t enough funding or attention or interest or effort to help the millions of miserables across the world in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sri Lanka and such. Those people had the sad misfortune not to be born “Palestinian” and so their plight is slightly below that of dogs in the scope of utterly enlightened western liberal do-gooders.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Joshua - I’m sorry to have dragged this article off topic, but since you took up the issue, rather than repeat long comments I made when I once tore apart an idiotic article by the vile John Pilger about Hiroshima on CiF I’ll refer you to that using the search facility there - you can still find his article there, and, mysteriously, my comments seemed to have survived the Stalinistas.
It is off topic to get into whether it was justified or not, but the fact so many are either unaware of or choose to ignore is that the death toll caused by an invasion of Japan would have been immeasurably higher, due to deaths in battle by Japanese programmed to fight or commit suicide by the last woman and child and widespread starvation of the Japanese of any survivors due to the characteristics of their food distribution system. Unlike Israel, the US and Allies would not have taken the trouble to supply japan with food and other “essentials” including, believe it or not, toilet paper (a common complaint by Israel bashers vis a vis Gaza) once the backbone transportation system was destroyed.
But to the other point - the destruction of other Japanese cities by firebombing was as widespread and horrific as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and caused more deaths - actually, arguably more horrific since so many deaths were NOT instantaneous. I suggest you read James Brady’s “Flyboys” for the gory details, which are enough to turn your stomach.
Since you seem to like wiki as a source here is an article about the first raid (of several) on Tokyo alone, something that was repeated on other major cities once the “effectiveness” of the B-29 fire-bombing raids had been demonstrated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
The first raid using low-flying B-29s carrying incendiaries to drop on Tokyo was on the night of 24–25 February 1945 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city.
Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 335 B-29s took off[1] to raid on the night of 9–10 March, with 279 of them[1] dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost.[1] Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs.[2][3] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million. These casualty and damage figures could be low: Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus
The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors’ accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile, the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.[4]
The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace.
Over 50% of Tokyo was destroyed by the end of World War II.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
AKUS,
If you read Robin Shepherd’s post far more closely and then give it some thought you’ll discover that the only person, at least for the very greatest part, you are arguing with is yourself.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Thanks Robin for your well put analysis. Once again.
Happened 70 years ago. Former Soviet Union started war against Finland in 1939 by (in)famous Shots of Mainila: Russia’s own artillery fired shots to Russia’s own territory near border town Mainila claiming Finland had fired the shots. In “response to Finnish aggression” Soviet Union sent bombers over Finnish civilian cities. Finland mobilized for war. Somehow we made it through. But as part of the peace deal Finland was declared guilty of war and required to pay war reparations to Russia for the damage Finland had caused!
Oxfam and - my goodnes the Finnish Church Aid - continues this (in)glorious Soviet tradition by their report. Especially as far as the point #5 in your blog is concerned…
Pasi
PS: Bought your book and read it during Christmas. Excellent analysis. Thanks.
January 3rd, 2010 at 5:30 am
What really riles me is that most of the funding for the likes of Oxfam comes from our taxes, whether via the EU or DFID. They don’t tell you that when they rattle the tin in the street or at Live8 concerts. So it doesn’t matter if you don’t happen to like the anti-capitalist, anti-semitic, etc., drivel published by these NGOs, you still have to pay for it. Twice, in fact, since all this “advocacy” is enthusiastically reported by the BBC (your licence fee). And not only the likes of Oxfam, but e.g. the Family and Parenting Institute. I’ll stop there since I’m getting really riled!
January 29th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I’ve been searching for this precise information on this topic for a long time.