I have read many reports and publications over the past few years, which were critical of Israel and written by journalists, international bodies and human rights groups. Not all were lies, blood liable or antisemitic because Israel is not perfect, and criticism of its policies is legitimate.
But the recent wave of allegations of an apartheid policy allegedly adopted by the Israeli government toward the Palestinians, which was first made by the B'Tselem organization, later by Human Rights Watch and most recently by Amnesty International, are nothing but hot trash and it's embarrassing to seriously argue against it.
5 View gallery
Amnesty report, claiming Israel conducts a policy of apartheid against Palestinians
(Photo: Reuters)
My thanks to NGO Monitor, and CAMERA - which analyze the output of the international NGO community from a pro-Israel perspective - for refuting the claims, thus saving me the trouble.
Those recent reports tick all the boxes of antisemitism. But for those interested in the work of Amnesty in recent years, and the role played by those who have taken over the organization, I refer you to Spotlight on Amnesty International, written by British investigative reporter David Collier. He wrote a 200 page report on the organization, its main activists, who are immersed in the space between an anti-Israel obsession and blatant antisemitism.
To call them rights activists, would be like giving credibility to a report on African Americans that was written by members of the Ku Klux Klan.
In the Amnesty report, Gaza is mentioned 600 times, the siege on the enclave mentioned 40 times and the Hamas terror organization is mentioned 26 times - only once in any critical tone.
5 View gallery
Dr Agnès Callamard (center) during a press conference on the Apartheid report earlier this month
(Photo: EPA)
Incredibly, there is no mention of Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel or on the Gaza rulers' refusal to accept the Middle East Quartet's conditions for removal of the siege.
There is no mention of the Palestinian opposition to any resolution of the conflict that is based on a two-state solution, but the Palestinian right of return is mentioned numerous times, articulating the notion that the Jewish people do not have the right of self-determination by having a state of their own.
It is doubtful that any one of those at the helm of Amnesty International have supported any of the peace agreements proposed in the past decades.
A visitor from Mars, who knows nothing about the conflict, would deduct that Israel is a cruel entity that is fighting an innocent one, which aspires only to freedom, by reading the 2022 report.
While the group consistently negates Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation, it regards the law of return, as the refusal to allow Palestinians their rights, and as proof that millions of people were made into refugees as part of an apartheid policy.
5 View gallery
An Amnesty International vigil held in DC in 2014 in solidarity with Palestinians
(Photo: AP)
In my query to Amnesty's London-based spokesperson, I wrote that in the first half of the 20th century, 60 million people were displaced due to wars, the formation of new states or forced transfers of populations. That number includes 850,000 Jews who escaped or were run out of Muslim countries, most often due to their property being confiscated. I asked if Amnesty had ever demanded the right of return for any of those millions?
The response I received claimed that if any of the Jews had kept up concrete relations with the countries of origin, they are within their right to return to them and receive compensation for any lost property.
Not a word was said in the response about the millions mentioned in my query.
The affiliation of Amnesty International with the Jihadist movement is not news and is not confined to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
In February 2010, a story was published about Gita Sahgal, then a senior Amnesty official heading the groups' gender unit, who dared to complain about the group's affiliation with a man by the name of Moazzam Begg, whom she described as the Taliban's greatest supporter in the UK.
Sahgal was suspended and later fired, despite having worked for human rights for over three decades.
In his response to her allegations, then-Amnesty's interim secretary, General Claudio Cordone, said Begg has never been charged with any terrorist-related offence or put on trial and continues to receive the group's support in his fight for the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Petitions in support of Sahgal were presented to Amnesty, while Salman Rushdie personally wrote a letter, expressing his support for her. Claims of the organization's affiliation with Jihadist groups, however, continued, with both the London Times and the Economist reporting about them in 2015 and 2016.
Sahgal herself warned about Amnesty's support of Kashmiri Islamist terror groups in their fight against India.
Not only Amnesty has been overtaken by an anti-Israel agenda, however, other rights groups have as well.
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are two camps. One is the camp promoting hate and demonization of Israel, and the other is promoting peace and normalization.
The first camp includes Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups that have taken control of the so called "rights" organizations.
Nearly all, of the dozens of groups in the former camp, are quoted in Amnesty's apartheid report, and they hide behind the term "human rights" in an effort to appear enlightened.
The Jerusalem-based B'tselem origination, for example, is quoted in the Amnesty report more than 100 times and the Palestinian advocacy group "Adallah" is quoted 157 times. The Hebrew language, left-leaning Haaretz daily paper is quoted more than 140 times.
Elhanan Yakira from the Hebrew University, described in his book "Post-Zionism, Post-Holocaust" (Cambridge University Press, 2010) the so-called intellectual autism, when academics quote each other in an enclosed eco chamber. Amnesty in its report did just that.
The second camp does not excuse Israel or withhold its criticism. This camp includes a growing number of residents of Arab countries and organizations such as Sharaka, a non-governmental organization established in the wake of the Abraham Accords, by people from Israel, UAE, and Bahrain - which seeks to advance regional cooperation. Unfortunately, most rights groups are not part of this camp. Unlike Sharaka, they promote hate and division.
Still, some of the claims listed in the apartheid report are valid and must not be ignored, despite the anti-Israel and antisemitic claims made in it.
When former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to annex the Jordan Valley, while denying local Palestinians civil rights or even a residency, he fueled claims of a discriminatory policy – and all in the interest of his re-election with support from the far-right.
5 View gallery
Right-wing demonstrators march in the predominately Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarah last December
(Photo: Alex Kolomoisky)
The report also describes other attempts by settlers to advance annexation of the West Bank land, while refusing to grant Palestinians any rights.
Israel's attempts to annex land is foolishness for which Israel is made to pay in spades. It also exasperates the conflict and validates Arab demands over their property.
Amnesty's apparent bias does not excuse Israel's responsibility to deal with these issues as well as with the primary question: Do we want a Jewish and Democratic state? Or are we choosing to live in a non-democratic bi-national state?
We owe it to ourselves to determine the answer. We do not owe Amnesty anything.