Pages

▼

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL VOTES AGAINST RESOLUTION CONDEMNING ANTI-SEMITISM - Human rights for all except for Jews - Summary of Amnesty International's long record of blatant anti-Israel bias and violations of its own stated purpose

daily life©http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/. Unauthorized duplication of this blog's material is prohibited.   Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full credit and link is given to Otters and Science News Blogspot.  Link to this post:  http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2015/04/amnesty-international-votes-against.html - Thank you for visiting my blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL?
Image result for amnesty international
 
OR
 


Amnesty International's home page says: 
 
"We campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all"
 
This appears to be false advertising. 
What is missing is a disclaimer clarifying: "ALL EXCEPT THE JEWS."


Amnesty International (AI) describes itself as a “worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all.”

However:
  • AI disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.
  • In violation of its policy of “impartiality,” Amnesty employs two anti-Israel activists
  • In August 2010, the executive director of Amnesty-Finland, Frank Johansson, referred to Israel as “a scum state” on his blog.
  • Amnesty International Australia has been accused of exercising improper oversight over its Facebook page, where several racist and antisemitic comments have been posted. One such comment states: "May god send another Hitler and rid the world from the cancer called the Jews."
  • A 2009 AI report ignores considerable evidence that Hamas used human shields, minimizes Palestinian violations of international law, and promotes boycotts and “lawfare” against Israel
  • Arms embargo against Israel: Campaigns for an arms embargo against Israel, while ignoring the massive flow of offensive weapons and explosives from Iran and Syria into Gaza.
  • Defending those linked to terror against Israel.
  • In 2010, senior staff member Gita Saghal was suspended after she condemned AI’s alliance with an alleged Taliban supporter.

    • (Read exposure of Amnesty International's true agenda further down this page.)


    TRUE TO CHARACTER, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL VOTES AGAINST RESOLUTION CONDEMNING ANTI-SEMITISM


    Amnesty International has rejected a motion to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain at its annual conference.

    The motion was table by Amnesty member Andrew Thorpe-Apps in March who said it was defeated at the International AGM on Sunday by 468 votes to 461.

    Mr Trope Apps said:         “It was the only resolution to be defeated during the whole conference.”Continue reading

    In March the charity confirmed the resolution calling for the group to “campaign against anti-Semitism in the UK and lobby the government to tackle the rise in attacks” had been accepted for discussion at the conference.

    A spokesperson for Amnesty said: “We can confirm this resolution has been tabled and will be debated at the AGM.”

    Mr Thorpe-Apps said he put forward the motion because “I recently joined and I believe passionately about human rights.

    “I was aware that the organisation has been outwardly pro-Palestine in the past but it hasn’t stood up for the Jewish population and I think it would be good if they did that.

    “I’m not Jewish myself but I’ve been appalled by what I’ve seen in the press facing the Jewish community and an organisation like Amnesty should really add their voice to that as they do with other human rights issues.”

    Here is the text of the resolution that was defeated:
    This AGM CALLS On AIUK to:
    • Campaign against anti-Semitism in the UK.
    • Lobby the UK Government to do more to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, whether physical or verbal, online or in person. The UK Government should monitor anti-Semitism closely and periodically review the security of Britain’s Jewish population.

    Proposer background notes:
    It has been 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. Yet, even in 2015, European Jews are facing intolerance and abuse from anti-Semites.

    There are now Jewish schools in the UK where the children are prepared for a potential terrorist attack, and there are Downing Street-style car bomb barriers to shield school buildings.

    This year witnessed the murder of four Jews following the appalling Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. In February a Jewish man was shot outside Copenhagen’s main synagogue following an attack at a free speech debate.

    On 9th February, the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism report was launched at Lambeth Palace. The report found that there was a 221% increase in hate crimes directed at Jews during the 2014 conflict between Israel and Gaza, when compared with the same period in 2013.

    The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitic abuse and attacks, recorded 314 incidents in July 2014, the highest ever monthly total and more than the preceding six months combined. A quarter of these incidents took place on social media, and one third used Holocaust-related language or imagery.

    The All-Party Parliamentary report recommends that:
    • An independent council of non-Jewish figures is established to highlight trends in anti-Semitism, and make suggestions to the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
    • The UK Government fund more research into anti-Semitism, report the findings to Parliament at least once per session about its work combating hate crime, and work with the CPS, police, and social-media companies to make online anti-Semitic abuse easier to report and stop.
    I assume that the voting was by secret ballot, which means that while Amnesty publicly says that it is against anti-Semitism, in reality most members actually have no problem with attacks against Jews.

    Which indicates that Amnesty's bias against Israel isn't a result of Israeli actions, but a result of the Jew-hatred among Amnesty's membership, a hate that they hide behind the false mantra of human rights.

    Even more troubling is the fact that there are so few Amnesty members condemning this. The only tweets from the conference itself about this issue seem to have all come from Matt Provost:
     
    One would think that at least some of the 461 "human rights activists" who voted in favor would be publicly upset at Amnesty's obvious double standards, or how it has been taken over by Jew-haters. (Really, how else would you characterize people who vote against condemning Jew-hatred except that they support it?) If Amnesty really cared about human rights, this event would evince some soul-searching among its leadership.

    Yet we are hearing practically nothing, even though the conference ended two days ago.

    Amnesty claims to be for universal human rights - but Jews who are being attacked are apparently not human enough for these self-righteous hypocrites.

    Amnesty International has zero credibility as a human rights group.
     
    The above article originally appeared here:
    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2015/04/amnesty-international-votes-against.html#.VTZAIMpFCM8


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    RELATED



    No charity for Israel from Amnesty International

    Amnesty International's bias against Israel is so blatant it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Prof. Michael Curtis deals the killing blow against this organisation and its litany of misdeeds.

    We all thought Oxfam was the most bigoted international charity organization but along has come Amnesty International to displace it from the pinnacle of shame.
    What is it about these supposedly good will international organizations that makes them so disproportionately obsessed with and so biased against the State of Israel and its citizens?
     
    What makes them so little aware, in any consistent way, of issues in the other 192 countries in the world?
     
    Over the last twenty years, activities of AI have shown a persistent attitude of criticism and even hostility towards Israel. Its official statements have referred to the “ethnic cleansing” in Israeli society, to the racial supremacy of Israel, to the expulsion and dispossession of Palestinians, and to the “current structure” of Israel as an apartheid state. It has no genuine title to neutrality.
     
    AI has supported the movement to boycott Israel. In a manner familiar from the diatribes of antisemites, it has criticized Israel for exploiting the memory of the Holocaust in order to oppress the Palestinian people. It defended the anti-Israeli, and implicitly antisemitic, remarks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he was President of Iran.
     
    Some of the pronouncements of AI have been over the top. It declared that the Israeli blockade of Gaza prevented “thousands of Palestinian students” in Gaza from pursuing higher education in the West Bank. AI seemed totally unaware of the considerable number of Palestinians who attend universities in Israel as well as in Palestinian areas.

    Read full article here
    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4778/no_charity_for_israel_from_amnesty_international


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    NGO MONITOR EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT
    AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

    Website: www.amnesty.org
  • Founded in 1961 by British lawyer, Peter Benenson.
  • Amnesty International (AI) describes itself as a “worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all.”
  • It claims to be “Independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion… it does not support or oppose any government or political system.”
  • AI disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.
  • In violation of its policy of “impartiality,” Amnesty employs two anti-Israel activists with well-documented histories of radical activism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Deborah Hyams and Saleh Hijazi, as researchers in its “Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian Authority” section.
  • Allegations of “war crimes”: Distorts international law, misusing terms like “collective punishment,” “occupying power,” and “disproportionate” in its condemnations of Israel’s Gaza policy.
  • AI’s report, “Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction” (July 2009), charges Israel with “war crimes” during the conflict. The 127-page publication ignores considerable evidence that Hamas used human shields, minimizes Palestinian violations of international law, and promotes boycotts and “lawfare” against Israel. 
  • During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, AI unjustifiably accused Israel of “war crimes” and “deliberate attacks on civilians,” and relied on Lebanese “eyewitnesses” to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers.
  • AI hosted a “Russell Tribunal on Palestine” on November 8, 2010, dealing with “Corporate complicity in Israel’s violations of International Law.”
  • Lawfare: On February 2, 2009, several media outlets reported that AI transferred files to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor regarding alleged “war crimes” committed by Israel. These reports made no mention of any AI initiative regarding Hamas war crimes aided by Iran and Syria.
  • AI defended the exploitation of British courts by pro-Palestinian “lawfare” activists. Amnesty-UK Director Kate Allen, along with other NGO officials, signed a letter published in the Guardian (“We must not renege on war crime laws,” January 16, 2010), protesting proposed changes to British law that would limit the unregulated access to UK judges that allows for politically motivated cases.
  • Arms embargo against Israel: Campaigns for an arms embargo against Israel, while ignoring the massive flow of offensive weapons and explosives from Iran and Syria into Gaza. An April 1, 2009 press release (“Shipment reaches Israel, President Obama urged to halt further exports”) revealed that AI tracked a vessel carrying arms across the Atlantic Ocean and through the Mediterranean Sea. Amnesty-USA accompanied this report with a call for action, including letters to Secretary of State Clinton labeling Israel a “grave violator of human rights” and demanding to know the “reason behind sending these arms now.”
  • Defending those linked to terror: Following the January 2011 conviction and sentencing of Ittijah head Ameer Makhoul on charges of spying for Hezbollah, AI claimed, “Ameer Makhoul’s jailing is a very disturbing development...[He] is well known for his human rights activism on behalf of Palestinians in Israel and those living under Israeli occupation. We fear that this may be the underlying reason for his imprisonment.”
  • In 2010, senior staff member Gita Saghal was suspended after she condemned AI’s alliance with an alleged Taliban supporter.
  • “Apartheid” rhetoric: The release of the report “Troubled Waters – Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water” (October 2009) coincided with a campaign alleging that “Israel’s Control of Water [is] a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing.” Ben White, author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide, spoke at the Amnesty-UK release of the report, as well as at other Amnesty-UK events. 
  • In August 2010, the executive director of Amnesty-Finland, Frank Johansson, referred to Israel as “a scum state” on his blog.
  • Amnesty International Australia has been accused of exercising improper oversight over its Facebook page, where several racist and antisemitic comments have been posted. One such comment states: "May god send another Hitler and rid the world from the cancer called the Jews."
  • In December 2013, admitted to working with the Alkarama foundation, a Geneva-based organization claiming to promote human rights, whose Qatari co-founder, Abd al-Rahman bin 'Umayr al-Nu'aymi (Nu'aymi), has been accused of financing Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen.
  • Funding: In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, AI reported an operating budget of approximately £21 million. In prior years, £30 million represented “approximately one quarter of the estimated income likely to be raised during the year by the movement´s national sections.” The majority of the funds come from individual donors, through AI local branches. 
  • Although AI claims that it does not accept donations from governments or political parties, in 2008 the organization received a 4-year grant from the UK Department for International Development (DFID), totalling to £3,149,000. In 2010, AI received £842,000 from DFID. Amnesty International and its branches have also received funding from the European Commission, the Netherlands, the United States, and Norway.

    • Amnesty Essentials:


    Source
    http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     

    Amnesty International: Failed Methodology, Corruption, and Anti-Israel Bias

     
    NGO Monitor February 23, 2015


    This research project is in progress (Latest update February 23, 2015). Additional sections will be added in the upcoming weeks.
    Amnesty International is perhaps the most prestigious international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to furthering human rights. Amnesty’s campaigns and publications are quoted by political leaders, journalists, diplomats, and academics.
     
    Yet, despite Amnesty’s influence, critical analysis of the organization and its activities has been limited. 
     
    The “halo effect,” which protects groups claiming to promote universal moral agendas and human rights from scrutiny because of its perceived impartiality, has insulated Amnesty from systematic critical assessment and reform, to its own detriment.
     
    This monograph details Amnesty’s financial mismanagement; repeated examples of “lawfare”; systematic flaws in the reporting of human rights abuses; limited understanding of armed conflict leading to erroneous claims and incorrect analysis; and violation of the universality of human rights, including a consistent institutionalized bias against Israel through double-standards.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Amnesty International: Founding Structure and Altered Vision
    Corruption at Amnesty's Core: Women's Rights, Workers Rights and Troubling Partnerships
              The Irene Khan Affair         
    Experts or Ideologues?
    Disproportionate Focus on Israel
    Further Reading
    Findings, But Few Facts, Anne Herzberg, The Jerusalem Post, November 29, 2014
    Amnesty's Credibility Problem, Gidon Shaviv, Ynet, June 6, 2012
    Amnesty International is Losing Its Way, Gerald Steinberg and Jason Edelstein, The Jerusalem Post, June 14, 2011
    The Dark Side of Amnesty International, NGO Monitor Analysis, April 6, 2010
    Amnesty Secretary-General Ignites Row, Abe Selig, The Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2010
    Scrutinize Amnesty International, Gerald Steinberg, The NY Sun, May 24, 2007
    Amnesty's "Human Rights Meltdown", Sarah Mandel, December 20, 2007
     



    Executive Summary
    Amnesty International is perhaps the most prestigious international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to furthering human rights.  Amnesty’s campaigns and publications are quoted by political leaders, journalists, diplomats, and academics.
     
    Amnesty has helped set agendas and influenced governments, as well as other international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
     
    Founded in 1961 as a small, volunteer initiative by Peter Benenson, the London-based organization has evolved dramatically, today operating around the globe, with thousands of employees and a multi-million dollar budget.
     
    Despite Amnesty’s influence, critical analysis of the organization and its activities has been limited.  The “halo effect,” which shields groups claiming to promote universal moral agendas and human rights from scrutiny because of a perceived impartiality, has insulated Amnesty from systematic critical assessment and reform, to its own detriment.
     
    In 2014, Amnesty finds itself in the midst of unprecedented crisis. In late 2012, working conditions led to strikes in its London office and UK section. Internal reports acknowledged that in some regions, particularly in the US, the organization has lost influence along with a significant number of members.
     
    As NGO Monitor’s research has shown, the crisis is rooted in a number of structural problems, including consistent post-colonial ideological bias, a pronounced lack of credibility in research reports, moral inconsistency, financial instability and corruption, failure to act with transparency in critical organizational aspects, and friction between the London office and key national sections (particularly the U.S.).
     
    The purpose of the detailed research is to contribute to a much needed independent assessment of Amnesty’s structure and activities. We present a brief overview of Amnesty’s founding, evolution, and current structure.
     
    On this foundation, we examine financial issues, including decreased funding (in part due to a significant drop in membership) and the myth of Amnesty’s rejection of government funds.
     
    Additional sections deal with ideological and political biases and with the lack of professional methodology and credibility in Amnesty’s publications, which have further limited the effectiveness of the organization. In particular, these failures are illustrated in Amnesty’s relationship with Israel and its treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

     In the course of our research, NGO Monitor has found:
    • Financial mismanagement among Amnesty’s corporate officers, most notably in the redundancy packages of former Secretary General Irene Khan and her deputy Kate Gilmore.
    • A professional staff who believe that Amnesty is undermining human rights through its own policies and practices.  In the words of Gita Sahgal, former head of the Gender Unit, Amnesty’s relationship with a pro-Taliban group “fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights.”1
    • Repeated examples of “lawfare,” the tendentious misapplications of legal terms and statutes to create the false impression of guilt.
    • Likewise, systematic flaws in the reporting of human rights abuses, including the repetition of false libels and comparison of Israel to terror groups such as Hamas.
    • An inadequate understanding of armed conflict leading to erroneous claims and incorrect analysis.
    • Violation of the universality of human rights, including a consistent institutionalized bias against Israel through double standards.
    • The employment of individuals in key research and leadership positions whose backgrounds, skills, and activities demonstrate the absence of professional human rights experience, exacerbated by deep ideological and political bias. This trend is incompatible with the requirements for credible and universal human rights reporting and analysis.
    1 Richard Kerbaj, “Amnesty International is 'damaged' by Taliban link: An official at the human rights charity deplores its work with a ‘jihadist’,” Times of London, February 7, 2010.
     
    Source
     
    *************************************************

     
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Thank you for visiting my blog. Your comments are always appreciated, but please do not include links.