Exposed: 'Breaking the Silence' collects intelligence on the IDF - Does it reach their European masters?
Greetings from Boston where I have been working all week, and where the Sabbath does not start for several more hours. I will be here until Sunday morning. Sunday is a travel day, but I'm not heading back to Israel just yet. I'm heading West... (and should have WiFi access on the plane, so you may see a few more posts on Sunday). And for those who watch the weather reports, it looks like I will once again escape a serious winter snowstorm by the skin of my teeth, God Willing.
For those of you who have forgotten 'Breaking the Silence,' they are an organization that claims to be dedicated to exposing IDF abuses of 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria. They are funded by
European governments, by the European Union (which awarded them the prestigious
Andrei Sakharov prize) and by private American citizens (as well as by
UNICEF and OxFam). Br'eaking the Silence' interviews
discharged IDF soldiers and
debriefs them regarding their IDF service. Or so they claim. It now seems that they do a lot more.
You might recall that recently, an organization called Ad Kan (Until Here) turned over video evidence to Israel's Channel 10 about human rights violations by 'human rights' groups
Taayush and B'Tselem.Spreading the wealth, the group handed over material on '
Breaking the Silence' to Israel's Channel 2, which reported on it Thursday night (link and video in Hebrew). The material shows that 'Breaking the Silence' is collecting military intelligence which has no connection to 'human rights' violations in Judea and Samaria or anyplace else. And the unanswered question is 'with whom does 'Breaking the Silence' share that intelligence material?' That intelligence material could clearly and presently endanger the State of Israel.
Here's a
summary in English.
In its investigation, Channel 2 cited unpublished testimonies from
Israeli soldiers that were obtained by the right-wing NGO Ad Kan, which
sent some of its members to join Breaking the Silence undercover. The
report claimed that Breaking the Silence collected “operational and
intelligence” information about IDF activities from both current and
former soldiers.
Channel 2 also broadcast videos of Breaking the Silence asking
soldiers “questions [that] appear to revolve more around their
operational activity rather issues regarding Palestinians and human
rights.”
While Breaking the Silence says it gathers anonymous testimonies from
Israeli soldiers about the IDF’s purported human rights abuses, these
testimonies have been previously criticized as being unsubstantiated and lacking context. In recent months, the group has come under increased scrutiny over the ethics of its practices.
In the wake of the new Channel 2 report, Breaking the Silence denied
any wrongdoing and emphasized that it works closely with Israel’s
military censor. Breaking the Silence CEO Yuli Novak added that several
organizations and members of the Knesset were trying “to silence” her
group.
And it seems that the next group to come under scrutiny may be 'rabbis' for 'human rights.'
In How Non-Governmental Organizations Became a Weapon in the War on Israel,
which was published in the February 2016 issue of The Tower Magazine,
Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, wrote about a subsequent
investigative report involving Breaking the Silence and Nawi.
The broadcast became headline news and the fallout
continued for weeks. Nawi was arrested at Ben-Gurion Airport when he
tried to flee the country.
A few days later, a follow-up program aired
more hidden-camera footage, this time showing Nawi with officials from
two other prominent “human rights” NGOs—Breaking the Silence (BtS) and
Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR). Both groups were shown giving money to
Nawi, who then handed out checks to Palestinians, apparently for taking
part in violent demonstrations. RHR claimed that Nawi was paid for
providing transportation services. BtS denounced everyone involved in
the program as “Stasi,” a reference to the notorious East German
intelligence service.
Steinberg observed that even before the broadcast of Nawi with
representatives of Breaking the Silence, there was growing criticism of
the group across the political spectrum in Israel.
Prior to the Uvda broadcasts, BtS and its patrons were
the particular focus of growing anger among many Israelis on the Right,
center, and even the center-Left. This anger followed a major jump in
the visibility of BtS, which reflected the group’s million- dollar
budget. BtS events in churches, universities, and national parliaments
around the world featured “anonymous testimony” that alleged systematic
immorality by IDF soldiers, with no corroborating evidence.
In response, hundreds of IDF reserve officers petitioned the Minister
of Defense, demanding that BtS activists be barred from speaking on
military bases. In parallel, relatives of terror victims and fallen
soldiers demanded that Education Minister Naftali Bennett prohibit BtS
from speaking to high school students. NGOs like B’Tselem were also
criticized. On Israel’s popular Saturday night satire program Gav Hauma,
host Lior Schleien did a ten-minute routine based on the issue,
primarily lampooning BtS and related NGOs.
I'm amazed that B'Tselem is allowed to speak on military bases.... But what Professor Steinberg says about anger coming from 'even the center-Left' is true. Yesh Atid party leader
Yair Lapid has accused 'Breaking the Silence' of digging under the foundations of the State of Israel, and causing it both internal and external damage (link in Hebrew).
For those of you wondering why Israel feels the need to stop foreign governments from financing its NGO's, this is another data point.
Labels: B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Channel 2, European anti-Semitism, European Union, Gerald Steinberg, IDF, NGO funding, NGO Monitor, Oxfam, Rabbis for Human Rights, Ta'ayush, UNICEF
But not 'Palestine'?
Four Dutch NGO's - including the local branch of Oxfam - are
laying off significant portions of their staff. But note where their activities are being cut back: In countries like Sudan and Rwanda where such activities are critical. Note where they're not being cut back: In 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian territories' where they're more political advocacy than humanitarian (Hat Tip:
Mike P).
Minister Lilianne Ploumen of Foreign Trade and Development
Cooperation announced the cuts earlier this year. From January 1st 2016
the development aid organizations will be losing more than 80 percent of
their government subsidy, going from about 50 million euros per year to
between 7 and 15 million euros per year.
The Minister wants to limit subsidies to initiatives that helps
people in third world countries defend their rights – something she
calls “lobbying and advocacy”. She therefore largely stopped the subsidy
for normal development, such as helping small farmers in Africa break
into the local market. She called the cuts “painful”. But according to
Ploumen, the world has changed and the importance of official
development funds for the development of a country is decreasing. “It is
also no longer the only funding stream”, she said when she presented
the new policy, according to the Volkskrant. “Businesses now contribute
in many ways. The concept of development aid will eventually disappear.”
This translates into layoffs for the four large development aid
organizations. Hivos will be laying off 50 of its 145 employees at the
Dutch office, Oxfam Novib will be laying off about 75 of its 325,
Cordaid 69 of its 250 and Icco will lose 175 of its 350 employees. The
organizations will also stop funding to projects all over the world next
year. Hivos will be withdrawing support from, among others, a project
to stop female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan – a project that is
internationally regarded as successful. Icco is withdrawing from South
Africa, Colombia, Peru and Brazil. Oxfam Novib is stopping all
initiatives in Bangladesh, Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
According to the four development aid organizations, focusing only on
lobbying and advocacy is a risky strategy. “You only have legitimacy to
lobby and advocate for something if you’re already active in the
place”, Marinus Verweij, director of Icco, said to the Volkskrant.
“Otherwise it is not credible.”
Priorities, man, priorities!
Labels: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, humanitarian aid, Iraqi Kurds, NGO funding, NGO's, Oxfam, Peru, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe
NGO report ties Oxfam to designated terror organization
A newly-released report by Shurat HaDin, an Israeli non-governmental organization (NGO), accuses Oxfam, a British NGO that is supported by a number of sovereign governments around the world, of having ties with the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which has been designated a terror organization in the United States, Britain and the European Union. Oxfam loudly
fired actress Scarlett Johansson as their spokesperson in January after Johansson took a position as spokesperson for SodaStream, an Israeli company that maintains a factory in Maaleh Adumim, which is in Judea.
For both political and propaganda reasons,
many terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas have
operated social service branches since their inception. The
PFLP has done the same for decades.
Oxfam has strong connections to two of these organizations:
The Union of Health Workers Committees (UHWC), which
provides medical services; and the Union of Agricultural
Workers Committees (UAWC), which deals with land ownership and agricultural issues. The UHWC and the UAWC deny
any connections to the PFLP. In the past, however, both have
acknowledged that they were founded as part of the PFLP and
share personnel with the terrorist group. There is, we believe,
conclusive evidence that they remain branches of their parent
organization, despite attempts to conceal these ties.
Oxfam’s connections to UHWC and UAWC have been publicly
acknowledged by the NGO. Oxfam has described both groups
as “partners” in its activities in both Gaza and the West Bank,
and proudly stated that Oxfam works “very closely” with them.
This closeness was recently reaffirmed by the signing of a new
agreement under which Oxfam pledged to continue funding
the UHWC. Oxfam has also issued many press releases and
calls for action that endorse both groups and even solicit
publicity for them.
A press release issued in 2008, for example, cited “Al-Awda
hospital in Jabaliya, run by
Oxfam’s partner,
the Union of
Health
Work Committees” (emphasis ours). More recently, a 2012
“media
advisory” regarding health issues in Gaza stated, “Oxfam’s
partner
UAWC is working to get emergency assistance to
those most at
risk. UAWC is available for interviews in English” (emphasis ours).
...
The group acknowledges 17 individual branches, coordinated
by the organization’s International Secretariat. Its branches
“are based in: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany,
Great Britain, Hong Kong, Ireland, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Quebec, Spain and the United
States” as well as “advocacy offices” in “Brussels, Geneva, New
York, Washington DC and Brasilia.”
Since 1942, Oxfam has risen from a small, single-issue
organization to one of the largest, wealthiest, and most
influential NGOs in the world. According to its
2013 annual
report
, Oxfam enjoyed revenues last year of almost a
billion
Euros, the lion’s share of which comes from “institutional
fundraising,” the UN, the EU, and other governments. Although
it bills itself as a charity and often requests personal donations
,
only 40 percent of its revenue comes from “public fundraising.”
...
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a Palestinian nationalist organization based on communist ideology.
It has engaged in terrorism since its inception. Formed in 1967
following the Six Day War, it quickly became one of the largest
parties in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and
has attracted both violently militant terrorists and a strong
intellectual following among both Arabs and the European
extreme Left. Throughout its history, it has consistently
rejected Israel’s right to exist and advocated its replacement
with an Arab state. Although it has sporadically supported negotiations with Israel, it
currently opposes talks or a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.
Read the whole thing.
I'm shocked.... Just totally shocked.... (NOT).
By the way, I had forgotten, but Scarlett Johansson was not the first spokesperson fired by Oxfam for ties to a company in Israel. That honor goes to
Sex in the City's
Kirstin Davis.
And the picture at the top of this post? It's an Oxfam billboard from the baggage claim area at Reagan National Airport in Washington DC. Haven't been there recently, but a friend snapped the picture last week.
Labels: Ahava cosmetics, designated terror organization, Oxfam, PFLP-GC, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Scarlet Johansson, Shurat HaDin, SodaStream
Scarlet Johansson doesn't regret choosing SodaStream over Oxfam
After being badgered by their interviewer, Actress Scarlet Johansson has told Britain's Sunday Observer she has
no regrets about choosing SodaStream over Oxfam.
When I Google "Scarlett Johansson" the fizzy-drinks maker is the
third predictive search suggestion in the list, after "Scarlett
Johansson hot" – before even "Scarlett Johansson bum". A month ago,
Johansson found herself caught up in a raging news story when it emerged
Oxfam
had written to her regarding her decision to become a brand ambassador
for SodaStream. The company, it transpired, manufactures its products in
a factory in a settlement on the West Bank, and while "Oxfam respects
the independence of our ambassadors," it wrote, it also "believes that
businesses that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and
denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to
support".
Johansson responded by stepping down from her Oxfam
role. From afar, it looked liked she'd received very poor advice; that
someone who is paid good money to protect her interests hadn't done the
necessary research before she'd accepted the role and that she'd
unwittingly inserted herself into the world's most intractable
geopolitical conflict. By the time Oxfam raised the issue, she was going
to get flak if she did step down, flak if she didn't. Was the whole
thing just a bit of a mistake?
But she shakes her head. "No, I stand behind that decision. I was
aware of that particular factory before I signed it." Really? "Yes, and…
it still doesn't seem like a problem. Until someone has a solution to
the closing of that factory to leaving all those people destitute, that
doesn't seem like the solution to the problem."
But the
international community says that the settlements are illegal and
shouldn't be there. "I think that's something that's very easily
debatable. In that case, I was literally plunged into a conversation
that's way grander and larger than this one particular issue. And
there's no right side or wrong side leaning on this issue."
Except,
there's a lot of unanimity, actually, I say, about the settlements on
the West Bank. "I think in the UK there is," she says. "That's one thing
I've realised… I'm coming into this as someone who sees that factory as
a model for some sort of movement forward in a seemingly impossible
situation."
Well, not just the UK. There's also the small matter
of the UN security council, the UN general assembly, the International
Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice… which
all agree that they're in contravention of international law. Half of me
admires Johansson for sticking to her guns – her mother is Jewish and
she obviously has strong opinions about Israel and its policies. Half of
me thinks she's hopelessly naive. Or, most likely, poorly advised. Of
all the conflicts in all the world to plant yourself in the middle of…
"When
I say a mistake," I say, "I mean partly because people saw you making a
choice between Oxfam – a charity that is out to alleviate global
poverty – and accepting a lot of money to advertise a product for a
commercial company. For a lot of people, that's like making a choice
between charity – good – and lots of money – greed."
"Sure I think
that's the way you can look at it. But I also think for a
non-governmental organisation to be supporting something that's
supporting a political cause… there's something that feels not right
about that to me. There's plenty of evidence that Oxfam does support and
has funded a BDS [boycott, divest, sanctions] movement in the past.
It's something that can't really be denied." When I contacted Oxfam, it
denied this.
Good for you, girl!
Labels: BDS, Oxfam, Scarlet Johansson, SodaStream
Oxfam accused of supporting 'Palestinian' terror organization
Israeli NGO Shurat HaDin has accused Oxfam of
donating money to organizations that support the Popular Front for the Liberation of 'Palestine,' a terrorist organization.
The letter alleges that Oxfam “provides financial aid and additional
forms of material support to the Union of Health Workers Committees
(UHWC) and the Union of Agricultural Workers Committees (UAWC),
instrumentalities of the terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP) in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the Palestinian
Authority.”
The PFLP has been associated with major terrorist
attacks dating back to the 1972 Lod Airport massacre, the assassination
of then-tourism minister Rehavam Ze’evi in 2001, and – according to a
report obtained by The Jerusalem Post from an expert on terrorism –
rocket attacks during former prime minister Ariel Sharon’s funeral and
other recent attacks.
The letter notes that “Oxfam readily
acknowledges it works very closely with these two Palestinian groups” –
which it says were created and are subsidized by the PFLP – and
“provides them financial support.”
“Your organization has
described them as your ‘partners’ in the numerous press communications
and reports you have published. Indeed, last month you signed a new
agreement with the UHWC to provide it further financial support,” said
Shurat Hadin.
Oxfam’s office in England said it had not yet
received the letter, but referred the Post to a statement by
Australia’s Foreign Ministry in May 2012 which rejected what appeared
to be similar allegations by Shurat Hadin regarding the UAWC. The
statement said that the UAWC was registered in Israel and not declared
illegal in Israel.
The Australian statement also said that no
offense was identified and named several European countries and Japan as
supporting the UAWC.
...
The letter notes that the EU has designated the PFLP as a terrorist
organization and that, “Article 3 of the EU Common Position prohibits
the making available of, directly or indirectly, funds, financial
assets or economic resources or other related services to or for the
benefit of the listed terrorist entities.”
Turning to US law, the
letter says that the PFLP is officially designated a “Foreign Terrorist
Organization,” pursuant to section 219 of the US Immigration and
Nationality Act and other legal provisions.
According to Shurat
Hadin, under a 2010 US Supreme Court case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law
Project, “any assistance or support to designated terrorist groups,
include putatively benign forms of assistance (such as agricultural
aid) is criminal.”
Read the whole thing.
Labels: European Union, Oxfam, Palestinian terrorism, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Shurat HaDin, United States
Oxfam: Israel herds 'Palestinians' into the gas chambers
Things haven't changed too much, have they? I will grant you that the incident in question occurred in 1977, but does anyone really believe that
Oxfam would do anything different today? Well, yeah, they wouldn't be stupid enough to have it be easily accessible on the internet....
A less well-known episode, but one that reveals much about the
evolution of Oxfam’s attitudes towards Israel, occurred in October 1977.
Oxfam’s then director-general Brian W. Walker had just returned from a
visit to Jordan and Israel. His observations in the West Bank prompted
him to write to Judith Hart, the Minister for Overseas Development in
James Callaghan’s Labour Government. His letter contained a number of
remarkable suggestions, not least of which was that Oxfam would be happy
to assist a British minister to “travel incognito” into Israeli
occupied territory via Jordan.
By far the most disturbing aspect of Walker’s letter,
however, was the allegation that Israeli policies in relation to West
Bank water resources amounted to a crime against the Palestinian people
that could be compared to the Holocaust.
“The policy being followed by Israel,” Walker declared, “is
in no real sense different from the use of the gas chambers by the Nazis
– for a ‘living’ death is, in many respects, worse than death itself.”
Things haven't changed very much at Oxfam, have they?
Labels: anti-Semitism, Holocaust, Oxfam
Michael Coren blastS Oxfam on Scarlett Johansson, SodaStream, and Oxfam
Here's a comment from Michael Coren on the entire Scarlett Johansson - SodaStream - Oxfam situation.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip:
Tundra Tabloids via
Ellen S).
Labels: BDS, Oxfam, Scarlet Johansson, SodaStream
SodaStream accuses Oxfam of funding BDS
The Super Bowl may be over, but the battle between Israeli advertiser SodaStream and the Oxfam NGO is far from it. On Sunday, SodaStream's CEO accused Oxfam - based on data from NGO Monitor - of
funding the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement.
“Unsurprisingly, Oxfam has joined the BDS in this movement [to close
down the West Bank factory],” SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum said. “I’m
saying ‘unsurprisingly’ because we found out that some of the Oxfam
branches have been donating funds to the BDS, and this money is used to
demonize and attack Israel.”
...
Birnbaum spoke out Sunday against Oxfam after the Israeli nonprofit
group NGO Monitor posted information on its website claiming that in
2013, the charity’s Dutch affiliate Oxfam Novib had transferred NIS
406,300 to the Coalition of Women for Peace, which was involved in the
BDS campaign against Israel.
Oxfam claims that they 'only support' BDS - they don't fund it. However they don't deny that their Dutch affiliate funds the Coalition of Women for 'peace' which is a participant in the BDS campaign.
Oxfam immediately responded, denying the claim.
“We do not support BDS. We do not fund BDS,” Oxfam
International’s head of media Matt Grainger said, though “we do fund
lots of civil society organizations and lots of Palestinian civil
society organizations.”
Yeah.... Right....
Three words: Money is fungible, and if you give money to an organization whose raison d'etre is to promote BDS, you're supporting and funding BDS.
Labels: BDS, NGO Monitor, Oxfam, Scarlet Johansson, SodaStream
