Amnesty International & Israel: Say it Isn't So!
Palestine Chronicle
Sunday, November 17 2002 @ 04:28 PM GMT
By Paul de Rooij
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20021117162854189

LONDON (PC) - 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.

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.

-Palestine Chronicle palestinechronicle.com. Redistributed via Press
International News Agency (PINA).