|
CounterPunch
October
31, 2002
Amnesty International
& Israel:
Say it
isn't so!
by PAUL de ROOIJ
Any organization fighting torture and other human
rights abuses deserves our support. A recognized leader in this
fight is Amnesty International (AI), helping people escape with
their lives or avoid torture for decades. Given AI's track record
and its role as a human rights monitor, one must be careful leveling
criticism against it. But one can no longer be silent about AI's
stance regarding Israel and Palestine.
This article analyzes Amnesty's entire public record and stance
during the current intifada (Sep. 2000 thru Sep. 2002). It is
an analysis of a meager record of 83 press releases and six reports
. It reveals the following shortcomings and questions about its
stance.
1. Trivializing
Israeli violence
One immediate conclusion is that AI's
public record greatly diminishes Israeli violence against Palestinians.
The reports only refer to a small fraction of the massive scale
of oppression and dispossession perpetrated by the Israeli Occupation
Forces (IOF). Occupation is a series of measures meant to make
life unbearable for millions, a reality barely mentioned in AI's
reports . For example, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians
severely wounded or maimed by the IOF, yet the scale of this
catastrophe or its deliberate nature aren't part of its reports
. AI refers to "closures" of most Palestinian cities,
but its reports don't convey the scale of these policies--hundreds
of thousands under curfew, the siege of cities, and the increase
in acute and chronic malnutrition amongst Palestinian children
. There is only one press release describing the prison-like
conditions of the Gaza strip--hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
corralled in the most densely populated area in the world.
Some examples
Item:
The July 23, 2002 F16 bombing of Gaza where a one-ton bomb killed
17 people elicited a bland statement . The extent of its admonishment
was: "This attack was disproportionate and is utterly unacceptable,"
and one is left wondering what AI would consider a proportionate
response. The remainder of the statement calls on the Palestinians
to stop their resistance and calls on the international community
to " step up its efforts to assist the Palestinian Authority
in improving the effectiveness of its criminal justice system
and its compliance with international human rights standards."
Perhaps AI can explain the relevance of this statement when commenting
on the Gaza bombing.
Not even in the darkest days of Apartheid
South Africa did the air force bomb the townships, thus it is
surprising to find that this was the first AI press release about
an aerial bombardment, although there were 42 preceding ones
with varying numbers of casualties.
Item:
AI recently issued a press release condemning the 'deportation'
of the family members of alleged suicide bombers to Gaza, and
it went so far as to call this a war crime. On the face of it,
this seems clear, but the press release reveals some serious
flaws. The seriousness of the crime is reduced because it doesn't
refer to the house demolitions accompanying the expulsion legal
proceedings. There was no legal appeal procedure to prevent the
house demolitions, and in one instance, the explosion of one
home wrecked ten adjacent houses. Furthermore, there is scant
reference to the arbitrary nature of the punishment and collective
aspects of the expulsions. Finally, it passes the proceedings
of as merely a legal maneuver that has been abused. The result
is that the extent and seriousness of the Israeli crimes have
been reduced .
Item: On
October 7, 2002, after Israeli tanks had pulled out of Khan Yunis,
Israeli helicopters bombed the crowded streets; they also
fired a missile at a hospital. The initial casualty toll amounted
to at least 14 Palestinians dead and 80 wounded. Given that Sharon
termed this operation a "great success," one would
have expected some response, but AI will not issue a statement.
AI's main problem is omission--failing to mention the great majority
of the events on the ground.
Item:
On October 21, 2002, a suicide bomb in Hadera killed 14 Israelis,
most of them military, and wounded about 50, again, most of them
military. AI issued a press release the next day condemning
the attack. Note the difference in the response between this
incident, and the Khan Yunis bombing.
2. Why is there
violence at all?
Reading AI's reports doesn't reveal why
there is a conflict in the area in the first place. The portrayal
of violence is stripped of its context, and historical references
are minimal. The fact that Palestinians have endured occupation,
expulsion, and dispossession for many decades, the explanation
of why the conflict persists, is nowhere highlighted in its reports.
This posture eliminates the possibility of taking sides, and
AI doesn't automatically side with the oppressed victims; instead,
it assumes a warped sense of balance. It qualitatively equates
the violence perpetrated by the IOF with Palestinian resistance.
In attempting to be impartial, AI is oblivious to the history
of ethnic cleansing that is the root cause. Israeli violence
is qualitatively different than Palestinian violence; it is different
than that found in other conflicts because it aims to expel the
native population.
AI refers often to the 'cycle of violence'.
As John Pilger has said: "It suggests, at best, two equal
sides, never that the Palestinians are resisting violent oppression
with violence." The 'cycle of violence' portrays the conflict
as something we can't explain, and let alone, do much about.
Furthermore, the pernicious element of this term is that AI doesn't
accept Palestinian justifications for violence, and the Israelis
are always portrayed as responding.
3. The human
rights mantra--apolitical fence sitting
AI's exclusive focus on human rights
may be acceptable when dealing with a single individual languishing
in jail for no apparent reason; in this case, its "apolitical"
stance also may be suitable. However, this approach is inappropriate
when dealing with a situation where abuses are perpetrated on
an unprecedented scale. Mass human rights violations are central
to the Israeli policy in Palestine, a key point that AI ignores.
Even in this case, AI utters increasingly tiresome calls to respect
human rights on "both sides" and calls to make human
rights "central to any negotiations." This is almost
comical.
The problems with AI's reports start
with the mantra it recites obsessively without regard to the
people in question. On the surface, this simple and neutral premise
seems sound enough, but it introduces serious problems if AI
is to function as an effective human rights advocate. One cannot
equate the violations of the rights of Palestinians, the oppressed
people, with the violations against Israelis, the oppressor.
It also is hard to imagine how criticizing the violent aspects
of state power can ever be non-political.
One thing is to have an "apolitical
stance," which may be acceptable, but the other is to use
this as an excuse to neuter criticism of any regime. It is clear
that AI hasn't carefully analyzed this aspect of its stance,
and hence, in the case of Israel/Palestine, the stated non-political
stance amounts to an avoidance of critical language or the leveling
of severe accusations. In the process, it also has lost its critical
edge, and its reports are trite recitation of some abuses. Sharon
hardly cowers over AI's reports.
4. Transfer.
Israeli government officials openly discuss
the notion of "transfer"--mass expulsion of the Palestinian
population. This discussion also takes place within Israeli society
to the extent that it is now a centrist political position. Given
the seriousness of the situation and the political acceptability
of this impending mass crime, it would seem to dictate immediate
action to impede it and to make clear to the Israeli government
that this would unambiguously constitute a plethora of serious
crimes. However, no such call or warning has been issued by AI.
A possible explanation is that AI specializes in retail human
rights abuses, and it is up to the UN and the international community
to mobilize against wholesale crimes. AI and other human rights
organizations appear to deal only with abuses that have taken
place, and do not work to prevent mass abuses.
5. An astonishing
report.
Even more disturbing is a recent Amnesty
report , Without Distinction July 2002, which de-legitimizes
in one fell swoop Palestinian violence against Israelis. AI accomplishes
this in three steps. First, it projects that Palestinians are
subject to some international statutes as other states -- which
is remarkable since Palestine isn't a state, but a people under
occupation. Israel has violated all but one of the provisions
of the Fourth Geneva Convention , as well as numerous other international
legal conventions including those on torture. It is remarkable
then that AI holds Palestinians accountable to international
laws that have lent them no protection whatsoever. Second, it
removes the legitimacy conferred by the UN to people fighting
occupation or oppression. It therefore equates Palestinian violence
to that of the Israeli occupier. Third, it prohibits resistance
against settlers. This is an odd statement given that a significant
fraction of the settlers are armed, violently dispossess the
native population, act with impunity, and with acquiescence and
protection of the Israeli army . It states without any qualification
that settlers are civilians, and thus should not be targeted.
Finally, it also prohibits any violence against civilians within
Israel proper. Possibly the only legitimate violence accorded
to the Palestinian struggle is to confront one of the most powerful
armies in the world--but even this right is not clarified in
its report. Finally, it levels the clearest accusation of various
serious crimes, including war crimes, against Palestinians themselves.
This is a shameful report.
6. Evident
bias
Even the language used in AI's reports
exhibits a bias. Since the beginning of the second intifada AI
has seldom outright condemned Israeli violence, the word "condemn"
was used primarily when referring to Palestinian violence . Furthermore,
emotive adjectives used to describe violent acts, like "horrific"
or "shocking", were only used when describing
Palestinian violence; in the case of the Israeli acts, the terms
used were almost inert -- in this case AI has a proclivity to
use the "alleged" adjective. The very first paragraph
of a report on Palestinian violence uses words like "deliberately
killed" --although this is not entirely clear; reports referring
to Israeli violence rarely attribute intention. It is mostly
Palestinian violence that has elicited forthright accusations,
e.g., war crimes. Despite the preponderance of violence on the
Israeli side, AI seldom has leveled such clear accusations against
Israeli actions during the same period; Israeli actions are mostly
reported to breach certain legal provisions, to breach standards,
to be disproportionate, or elicit calls to respect human rights,
but the accusation of "war crimes" has been made only
thrice .
An important word to describe the conflict is 'occupation'. Now,
leaving aside the name 'occupied territories', there has been
scant reference to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.
In no report was the meaning or the implications occupation made
clear. Again, this sanitizing of language is troubling.
7. Adopting
Israeli-centric language
AI uncritically uses Israeli terms to
describe the conflict. The Israeli army likes to refer to itself
as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)--so does AI; a more neutral
name like the "Israeli army" would be more appropriate.
It is curious that AI refers to some occupation forces' actions
by their operation name, e.g., "Defensive Wall". Names
of military operations are part of the PR campaign; AI's adoption
of such terms serves Israeli propaganda. It is also disconcerting
to find that AI accepts the rationale given by the IOF for its
campaigns--invariably it is 'retaliation' or 'response'. For
example, the very first page of its extensive report, Broken
Lives, uses the Israeli 'response' justification for its
violence.
In general, AI uses terms coined by the occupation forces, e.g.,
"administrative detention" which conveys the impression
of a legal process; in reality it refers to arbitrary imprisonment
without charges, trial, appeal, often without legal representation,
for undefined terms, and frequently at the notorious Ansar concentration
camp.
Without exception, AI uses quotation
marks around the word 'collaborators.' The IOF regularly uses
collaborators to inform on other Palestinians--it is evident
in most towns, and the men who were severely beaten because they
refused attest to its pervasiveness. Do the quotation marks refer
to the alleged accusation, or to AI's unwillingness to accept
collaboration with the IOF as a crime? The use of "alleged"
instead of the quotation marks would make its meaning clear.
In contrast, AI refers to the persons
killed in Israeli extra judicial assassinations as wanted men,
or as men validly accused for violent acts. AI is taking the
Israeli statements about these men at face value--no quotes needed
around 'wanted' or 'accused'. A different standard is applied
to either justification for assassination.
AI uses the term 'deportation' for the
expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories. Deportation
implies a legal procedure that Israelis would have a right to
implement . However, given the fact that the victims of this
procedure are Palestinian natives this should be termed an expulsion,
but preferably an exile. Sending a resident of the West Bank
to Gaza should perhaps be termed imprisonment--given that Gaza
resembles today a giant prison. The term deportation also hides
the arbitrary nature of the action, e.g., expelling family members
of an alleged attacker, and the collective punishment of the
act accompanied by demolishing their houses.
8. The harmful
David Holley, an AI military adviser,
uttered statements diminishing the events in Jenin . Given that
the statements were made before a UN fact-finding team
was instituted, such statements were detrimental in the attempt
to establish the UN investigation -- an investigation that ultimately
never occurred. Because of that, we may never know what happened
at Jenin. Given that no detailed investigation ever took place,
his statements were sheer speculation. His statements helped
whitewash whatever occurred on the ground. Finally, Mr. Holley
concurred with an Israeli demand to include military experts,
erstwhile seen as a ploy to mollify the investigation team, further
delay, and undermine the UN team. AI has not sought to clarify
Mr. Holley's remarks. AI should also explain why it employs military
experts; military justifications for destruction or killings
should not play a role in human rights abuse investigations.
9. The Absurd
AI has called on several Israeli governments
to set up tribunals to prosecute and punish Israeli perpetrators
of crimes against Palestinians. AI is requesting a government,
led by someone who essentially is a war criminal, to prosecute
Israeli soldiers. One can only imagine Sharon's hoots of laughter
upon hearing this recommendation. Had AI called its colleagues
at B'tselem in Jerusalem it would have found that the Israeli
soldiers act with impunity against Palestinians. The few cases
investigated for abuses were dismissed or have been shelved forever.
Should anyone be actually convicted one can only expect suspended
sentences or minor sentences in open prisons.
10. The questions
AI has admitted in a press release that
its officers " have had meetings with Israeli officials
or members of Israeli diplomatic missions in many countries."
It would be nice to know who instigated those meetings. If it
is the Israeli side, then their interests must be no doubt to
change the language in the reports or to engage in damage control.
If AI was the instigator of the meetings, then one would like
to know what was the result of these meetings. A singular lack
of improvement in Israeli observance of human rights should have
dictated cessation of its dealings with such "embassy"
officials long ago. Furthermore, one can understand meetings
with Israeli officials in London, AI's headquarters, or in Israel
proper, but they occurred "in many countries"--why?
Second, AI insists that those involved in report writing not
be connected to the area to sustain impartiality and objectivity.
In the case of Israel/Palestine AI enforces an exclusion of Palestinian
and Israeli rapporteurs. However, it doesn't implement exclusion
based on ethnic-origin. In the name of objectivity, there is
a case to be made to exclude Jewish and Muslim rapporteurs.
Finally, the AI university campus chapters
in the US have become suspect. That is, many of the students
attend meetings mostly to deal with questions pertaining Israel.
If so, it behooves AI to enforce ethical conduct rules in these
chapters.
11. The semi-useful
AI is primarily effective by using moral
suasion with the governments involved in human rights abuses,
and it exerts pressure by directing letter-writing campaigns--or
its modern online equivalent. Its reports used to shame and embarrass
the odd dictator. Today's petition drives take the human rights
activist to website where one can pick from a menu of victims.
Some description of the condition of the hapless victim is given,
and one can then press a button to register one's concern.
Presto! Liberals will feel much better,
their guilty conscience assuaged. No matter what AI does with
the petition lists, this amounts to a means to dissipate anger
and not to redirect it into productive action. Could AI please
describe the reception of the petition list by Israeli embassy
staff?
AI repeatedly calls for the introduction of 'unarmed' observers.
The experience of the unarmed Norwegian observers in Hebron proves
that this measure is grossly inadequate. Settler violence and
threats forced the evacuation of the observers, and they weren't
able to provide any protection to the Palestinian population.
AI's call for human rights observers assumes that it is helping
two parties desiring a peaceful solution to the conflict. However,
given the history of human rights violations by the Israelis,
any further calls for the introduction of unarmed observers is
at best disingenuous. Furthermore, AI's stance on this issue
ignores the repeated calls by Palestinians for armed protection.
It is essential that armed military enforcers be brought in to
protect the Palestinians, as only this measure will likely create
conditions to resume meaningful negotiations.
Photo Musa Alshaer, 2002
If AI is serious about motivating human
rights campaigners around the world, then a deeper understanding
is needed of why there are conflicts. At present, its reports
are seriously flawed, and of limited use to educate human rights
activists. An informed activist with a firm grasp of the issues
will be more effective than one who is only expected to press
a few buttons on the website.
12. Sharon
Ariel Sharon has blood on his hands --
dating back many decades. Thousands of people have been his victims
and vast swathes of cities have been demolished by him. The Sabra
and Shatila massacre is among the bloody chapters, one for which
even an Israeli commission attributed blame.
Up to now, AI has only piggybacked on
the attempts to indict Sharon in Brussels--an action instigated
by others. And that case deals only with the Sabra & Shatila
massacre.
Given what is happening now in the Occupied
Territories, e.g., Jenin, the repeated bombing "successes",
gross violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, etc., it would
seem that calling unambiguously for a war crimes tribunal would
be a constructive step. One thing is certain: Sharon, Peres,
Elieser are afraid of war crimes indictments. A credible threat
thereof would stop them from further escalation. What stops AI
from issuing a call for a war crimes tribunal now?
13. Israeli
propaganda compliant
The website of The National Interest,
a pro-Israeli rightwing foreign affairs journal , reveals in
the "Other Links Page" a list of the usual rightwing
organizations, e.g., Heritage Foundation, CATO, Milken Institute
and among them is AI . It strikes one that AI is amongst odd
company. Perhaps it is a case that AI's reports are so sanitized
and without any critical edge that they don't offend such dubious
journals.
Israel and its propagandists may not like it when AI accuses
it of war crimes, but in general, they will be pleased with the
lame nature of Amnesty's stance and its reports. Here is why:
(1) It diminishes the nature and extent
of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, partly whitewashing
Israeli actions.
(2) It equates the nature of violence
of the oppressor and oppressed. AI refuses to hold Israel up
to a different standard. Although it accuses Israel of war crimes,
it also levels the same accusation against Palestinians.
(3) AI remarkably accepts Israeli justifications
for its violence, e.g., 'response,' but accepts no justification
for Palestinian violence.
(4) AI doesn't issue strong condemnations
against Israeli actions. There have only been three clear war
crime accusations, and all the other accusations are lame breaches
of policing standards, etc.
(5) AI doesn't call for any measures
that would curtail Israeli actions. Calling for unarmed observers
is a woefully inadequate measure given the need to protect the
population.
AI's approach will please the Israeli
government and its supporters. AI's current stance not only doesn't
offend pro-Israeli organizations, it doesn't call for effective
action putting it on a collision course.
Conclusion
Human rights organizations have taken
on a responsibility to stand up against the injustices perpetrated
by state power. In the case of Amnesty International, its public
record indicates that its stance is ineffective and dubious when
it comes to defending Palestinian human rights. It is not a question
of desiring more, but demanding the very minimum.
Paul de Rooij
is an economist living in London, and is an ex-supporter of Amnesty.
He would like to thank Donatella Rovera, AI's researcher on Israel/Palestine,
for the long discussion held with her--unfortunately, many questions
remain. He would like to thank the 20+ academics, human rights
professionals, and lawyers who reviewed this article. It is odd
to put one name as an author to a document towards which so many
people contributed.
Yesterday's
Features
David Krieger
We Can
Stop This War Before It Begins
Dr. Susan Block
Sex and
Fear:
a Halloween Greeting
Michael S. Ladah
Sharon's
Wall
Linda S. Heard
North Korean
Nuke Admission Undermines US War Stance
David Vest
Back Off
or I'll Snap!
Deb Reich
Beyond the Onion of Blame:
Parallel Sovereignty for Israel/Palestine
Phyllis Pollack
Keith
Richards LA Surprise
CounterPunch Wire
NAS Withholds Key Info on Moscow
Theater Gassing
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- The Shafts of Death: Bush, Coal Mines, and Death
in the Tunnels;
- Speak Memory!: Carter and the Draft;
- Daniel Pipes' World: Smearing Pro-Arab Academics;
- Ashcroft's Gays: the War on Free Speech;
- Saddam's Amnesty: Could It Happen Here?
- Criminalizing Dissent: a history and preview;
- Iraq 1987: When the Going Was Good;
- Egypt in Turmoil: an Anthropologist's Account;
- Green and Grounded: Profiled at the Gate.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
October 26
/ 27, 2002
Michael Wolff
A Place
of Tears
Ilija Trojanow
Bali Mon Amour
Ben Tripp
Crocodile Tears
Hope Shand and Silvia Ribeiro
The Great Containment:
GM Fallout from Mexico to Zambia
M. Junaid
Alam
The Wolf Who Cried Wolf:
Charging Anti-Semitism & Extending the Iron Wall
Gavin Keeney
The Fusion Thing:
Landscape + Architecture
Adam Engel
A Good Man is Hard to Misfit
Anis Shivani
Is America Becoming Fascist?
Jason Leopold
Is Thomas White Fit to Lead the Army?
Philip Farruggio
Let Them Eat (Crumb) Cake
Josh Frank
The Grassroots of Hope
Anthony Gancarski
Concerned Citizen: episode 5
Night School
M. Shahid
Alam
The Civilizing Mission
October 25, 2002
Wayne Madsen
Pappy
Bush on Wellstone:
"Who Is This Chickenshit?"
Stuart Timmons
Harry
Hay Dead at 90:
He Paved the Way for Modern Gay Activism
Vanessa Jones
Australia
Votes Green:
Historic No Vote to US War Plans
Ben Terrall
Rep.
Tom Lantos' Big Lie
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Behind
the Drive for War:
The Escalating Bush Military Budget
Will Youmans
Israel's and Divestment
Norman Madarasz
Lula
on the Verge
October 24,
2002
Jo Freeman
How the
Christian Coalition Boosts Israel
Ben Tripp
George
W.: Caught Between Iraq and a Hard Place
Harry Browne
Ireland's Dreary Yes to Nice
Anis Shivani
A Guide
for the Perplexed:
the Major Countries of the World as Defined by the Office of
Strategic Influence
T.W. Croft
America's
New Improved War
William Hughes
A Free
Press, But for Whom?
Alan Farago
Jeb Bush and the Environment
October 23,
2002
Daniel Wolff
Pataki,
Witt and the Indian Point Nuke
Wayne Madsen
A Saudiless
Arabia
Sam Bahour
and Paul de Rooij
Abritrary
Imprisonment
Chris White
Why I Oppose
the US War on Terror:
an ex-Marine Sergeant Speaks Out
Anthony Gancarski
Back to Bali
Adam Engel
Twilight
(of the Idols) Zone
Robert Fisk
How to Shut Up Your Critics
October 22,
2002
Jack McCarthy
A Letter
to C. Hitchens
Carol Norris
This Message
Brought to You by Breast Cancer, Inc.
Joanne Mariner
Just
Say "Not Until We're Married":
Legislating Morality and Understanding HIV/AIDS Prevention
Kathleen Christison
Excuse Me?
How Israel Justifies Killing Palestinians
Linda Heard
Iraq War
Mongering:
A Game of Chess with Lives at Stake
Roger Peacock
Marketing the War on Iraq
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|