So-Called "human rights" NGOs Betray Gilad Shalit
Gil`ad Shalit is an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas and allied forces in Gaza in June 2006 and held incomunicado since then [if he is still alive]. Part of the reason for the neglect by these NGOs lies in the fraud contained in their name -- NGO. These initials stand for "non-governmental organization." However, the name is fraudulent. Most of these "NGOs" get funding and political direction from governments. And if governmental funding is minimal or non-existent, they still take their political direction from governments. They are not committed first and foremost to the lofty goals that they ostensibly espouse. Amnesty International for instance has its headquarters in London and seems to take political direction from the UK govt intelligence services, although certain American intelligence services may also have some input on Amnesty.
It should be borne in mind that Amnesty made a drastic change in its stated principles some 20 years ago. Originally, when founded in the 1960s, Amnesty championed "prisoners of conscience," that is, political prisoners who DID NOT advocate violence or the violent revolutionary overthrow of their governments. This principle was replaced about 20 years ago by one that approved of aiding advocates of violence.
In any case, it is obvious that governments have their interests which they pursue by various means. These means may not be in harmony with human rights or civil rights or peace. However, using an ostensible NGO may be effective as a kind of unofficial diplomacy which hides behind lofty liberal slogans in order to reach goals and serve interests that may be diametrically opposed to liberal and universal principles. The UK secret services have long been masters at these techniques of dissembling and disguise. The Arab/Muslim techniques of kasb and taqiyyah and kitman cannot begin to be compared in effectiveness to the sophisticated means and techniques developed by the UK.
NGO Monitor has helpfully documented NGO inaction, neglect, and bad faith in the Shalit Affair, while also spelling out Shalit's rights under international law. For our previous posts on the Shalit Affair see here & here & here & here & here & here.
Betrayed by Silence: NGOs ignore Gilad Shalit´s rightsRead Rest of Article Here.
March 26, 2009
The evidence plainly demonstrates that Gilad Shalit is not a high priority for human rights NGOs, despite NGO claims to the contrary. There is no evidence that NGOs have undertaken sustained campaigns in support of Shalit's rights.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have made only infrequent references to Shalit. These are always in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction," and "collective punishment."
After NGO Monitor publicized this issue, Amnesty published a report entitled "Detainees used as bargaining chips by both sides in Israel/Gaza conflict." The authors drew an absurd parallel between the Shalit family situation and Palestinian families whose visiting rights to prisoners were limited.
Most Israeli groups - PHR-I, Gisha, Yesh Din, and ACRI - have published one or two statements in support of Shalit. (As expected, Palestinian groups that claim to promote human rights have a similar record. )
B'Tselem’s minimal comments on Shalit's predicament contrast with the frequency and emphasis on allegations of Israeli "violations of international law."
On March 15, 2009, to mark 1000 days since his kidnapping, NGO Monitor issued a press release about Gilad Shalit, "highlight[ing] the almost total silence and inaction of human rights NGOs over his fate," in particular Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and B'Tselem. Shalit has been held captive in Gaza since June, 25 2006 without access for the International Committee of the Red Cross, in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention. During this period, when international and Israeli NGOs published hundreds of reports and press releases alleging Israeli "war crimes," especially regarding Gaza, only a handful of statements addressed Shalit's plight, despite the irrefutable, ongoing violation of his rights. As the evidence plainly demonstrates – though these organizations do not dispute the grave violation of his rights – Gilad Shalit is not a high priority for human rights NGOs.
International humanitarian law was enacted to guarantee the rights and protections of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention lays out these rights unequivocally: the right to humane treatment (article 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (article 23); the right to send and receive letters and cards on a monthly basis (article 71); the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (article 126), and others.
Inadequate NGO "campaigns" on behalf of Gilad Shalit
Despite claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that NGOs have undertaken sustained campaigns in support of Shalit's rights or calling for his release. Instead, some NGOs have published occasional statements (tending to correspond to the one-year and 1000 day anniversaries of Shalit's capture), while others have ignored Shalit completely. Additionally, many NGO reports mention Shalit to condemn Israel for counterterrorism measures taken in the aftermath of his capture; Israel is accused of "war crimes," while Shalit's rights are erased.Amnesty International – Relative to HRW and Israeli NGOs, Amnesty International has taken a slightly more active interest in Gilad Shalit. Since June 2006, Amnesty has published 33 "urgent actions" relating to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None has addressed Gilad Shalit. But according to a news report, "Amnesty International has been working with the Shalit family," and Amnesty's Philip Luther claimed that "the Shalit case... had been taken up as a campaign by group members." At the same time, Amnesty's official mechanisms for confronting rights violations, including global "appeals for action," and press releases and reports that are widely adopted by the international media, have largely been silent on Gilad Shalit. When Amnesty does call for the protection of his rights, it is always in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction," and "collective punishment."
So why do the NGOs overlook the scandal of Hamas holding Shalit incomunicado for nearly three years? Probably this is because the major "human rights" NGOs represent --unofficially-- governments that support the Arab cause, the Hamas cause, against Israel --at least unofficially-- and therefore supporting Shalit would distract from the main message of support for Arabs against Israel, against Jews, for Arab/Muslim terrorism, etc.
What should Israel's government do in this situation? It should not negotiate over Shalit's return without seeing him. That could be photos of him taken by and with Red Cross [IRCR] personnel. In other words, first we have to know with our own eyes that he is alive. Olmert's govt betrayed us before by releasing a live criminal scum in return for the dead bodies of two Israeli soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. If Hamas refuses to allow access, then that is a serious violation of international law and should lead to denial of humanitarian services to those in the Hamas-ruled territory. After all, reciprocity is also part of int'l law. Further, governments that have come close to recognizing Hamas [UK, EU] or have already done so [Norway], should be publicly scolded for doing so. Why not expel the Norwegian ambassador and downgrade the state of Israeli diplomatic relations with Norway, if Norway refuses to break its relations with Hamas after an open Hamas refusal of access to Shalit. Indeed, there are many reasons to consider Hamas in violation of int'l law besides holding a prisoner incomunicado. Lowering the level of ties with Norway could also mean reducing the number of Norwegian citizens allowed to operate in Israel, whose operate is to undermine Israel and boost the Arabs. We can go on about this.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: Obama's anti-peace peacemongering, dancing with the ayatollahs, adopting the Commie policy of a "Two State Final Solution," Jerusalem archeology, propaganda analysis, etc.