Open letter and memorandum of protest to Amnesty International

source: http://www.intifada.gr/cgi-bin/pages/page3.pl?arlang=English&arcode=150407120333&argenkat=%D0%F1%FE%F4%EF%20%E8%DD%EC%E1

On the occasion of the recent report of Amnesty International, denouncing Palestinian armed groups for war crimes, the Greek Association for Solidarity with the Palestinian People – INTIFADA sent and publishes an open letter and a memorandum of protest to Amnesty International, concerning its general stance on the Palestinian issue.


In the memorandum, the stance of Amnesty International is examined not under the view of the groups of solidarity with the Palestinian people and resistance, but on the basis of its own framework which in theory is the defense of human rights and the impartial denunciation of violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, by whoever commits them. 

In the memorandum, only some of the most important aspects of the problematic way Amnesty International addresses the Palestinian issue, are examined, such as:

1.  Refusal to support the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people
2. Disproportionate exposure of violations
3. Selective examination of specific violations only by one side
4. Delay in examining serious allegations
5. Refusal to refer to the crime of apartheid
6. Selective and deficient work about the rights of prisoners
7. Refusal to accuse specific Israeli officials
8. The appeal for arms embargo against both sides
9. Double standards about international military interventions

Download and read the entire memorandum of protest, in English:
Open letter and memorandum of protest to Amnesty International

Read in Greek:
Ανοιχτή επιστολή και υπόμνημα διαμαρτυρίας προς τη Διεθνή Αμνηστία

Denunciation and Puzzlement at Amnesty International's appointment of Michael Abraham Levy

The following statement most probably has some inaccuracies. For example, although it's true that Amnesty International refused to adopt Nelson Mandela as prisoner of conscience, there's no evidence that Amnesty International ever "designated him as a terrorist". Nevertheless the main issue is the appointment of Lord Michael Abraham Levy as a member of its Secretary General's Global Council. That's why is republished here.

Source: http://www.gnrd.net/vnews.php?id=400#sthash.HIXuBr3z.dpuf

Denunciation and Puzzlement at Amnesty International's appointment of Michael Abraham Levy

17 December 2013, GNRD Press Release – The Global Network for Rights and Development and the undersigned organisations express their denunciation and profound puzzlement at Amnesty International's recent decision of appointing Michael Abraham Levy, as a member of its Secretary General's Global Council, and urge for reconsideration of that decision.

 

While we recognise the important role of Amnesty International on the international human rights arena, and strongly support its independence. Nevertheless, we draw attention to the need to circumvent repetition of historical errors the organisation has committed in the past that still haunt its reputation, for example the refusal to consider the international freedom-fighter Nelson Mandela as a prisoner of conscience, and opting instead to designate him a terrorist.

 

Amnesty International now manifests yet another harsh example of political interference onto its professional track record, by appointing a controversial personality, whose assumption of a leadership position raises many questions about the future trends of the organisation, and its direct susceptibility to extremist views, especially at decision-making level.

 

The undersigned organisations to this press release stress that Mr. Levy, born in 1944, is one of the major supporters of settlement and extremist institutions in Israel, he stands behind vast donations to support and promote the concept of ​​occupation. Moreover, that his 9-year tenure as adviser to the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, saw the implementation of various policies against human rights, be it on the level of support for Israeli occupation, or participation of that government in aggression against Iraq and in crimes against humanity. Many people around the world realise the fanaticism and extremism of advisory opinions promulgated by Mr. Levy during that period, and their threat of world security and peace, as he was considered among the key people to launch the trend of forsaking basic rights for the higher interests of state.

 

The Global Network for Rights and Development and the undersigned organisations believe that a person with such record shall wreck the credibility of Amnesty International, and condemn its tendencies and policies into questioning; a development that could lead human rights organisations around the world to boycott Amnesty International.

 

The undersigning organisations also emphasize their condemnation of Amnesty International's position of appointing Levy as one of the key policymakers at an international human rights organisation.

 

Amnesty International is required to provide immediate explanations to many thousands of members around the world on the professional standards applied to the election and recruitment of a person classified by many a human rights platform as hostile to human rights.

 

Considering the attainment of funding as a mere standard for appointment to leading positions in international organisations could landmark the beginning of a moral collapse that defies the founding principles of any human rights organisation.

 

Therefore, as partners in making the future of humanity, we claim the right to call upon Amnesty International to immediately rescind its decision, which we deem as lacking the prudence essential for an organisation of such international prominence.

 

Principles of tolerance and forgiveness grant each person the right for proactive participation in human rights tasks if he/she adopts the underlying values; an attitude, which Mr. Levy has not proven neither by word nor deed.

Are They Just Waiting for Samer Issawi to Die? A Note to AP and Amnesty International

source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/are-they-just-waiting-for-samer-issawi-to-die/ 

by ALISON WEIR

Samer Issawi has lived for 33 years, 1 month, and 27 days. I hope he lives another day.
He has been on a hunger strike now for six and a half months. Gandhis’ longest hunger strike was 21 days.
The IRA’s Bobby Sands and nine other Irish hunger strikers died in 1981 after strikes lasting from 46 to 73 days.
Issawi’s internal organs are starting to shut down, he can no longer walk, he is reportedly suffering loss of vision and vomiting blood, it is difficult for him talk, and he is increasingly near death. He has lost over half his body weight.
One of the main ideas behind such nonviolent resistance is that world awareness will bring pressure on behalf of the sufferer.
Yet, U.S. news outlets are not covering Issawi’s hunger strike. It appears that the Associated Press has not run a single news story on Issawi’s strike and refuses to answer queries on the subject.
AP’s lack of reporting on the situation is even more inexplicable given that there has been an international campaign on Issawi’s behalf.
There have been banner drops in Washington, D.C, Chicago, Cleveland, Austin, and other parts of the world; demonstrations and vigils in numerous cities; and Issawi’s plight has made it onto Twitter’s world-trending list at least four times this month.
The alleged “crime” for which Issawi is being imprisoned and may die – there has been no trial – is for having allegedly traveled outside Jerusalem. Issawi is one of the Palestinian prisoners released in a prisoner exchange in 2011, and such movement, Israel says, violated the terms of that release. (It is unclear whether Israel has formally charged Issawi.)
However, Issawi supporters point out that Issawi’s “travel” was to an area near Hizma, and Israel does not appear to dispute this, bringing into question Israel’s claimed reason for incarcerating him: Hizma is within Jerusalem’s municipal borders.
Israeli is holding Issawi under “administrative detention,” a system by which Israel holds Palestinian men, women, and even children for as long as the Israeli government wishes without trials or charges; sometimes for decades. Since 2000 Israel has reportedly issued 20,000 such detention orders.
In response to Issawi’s hunger strike, Israel has begun punishing his family. Israel arrested his sister for a period and reportedly cut off water to her house. In early July the Israeli army demolished his brother’s home.
It is difficult to think that if an Israeli soldier were held by Palestinians that the Associated Press would not run a single story about it. (AP ran many dozens of stories on Israeli tank gunner Gilad Shalit when he was held in Gaza.)
It is even more difficult to imagine that if an Israeli held by Palestinians (none are) had been on a hunger strike – let alone one that had lasted months and put him near death – the person would not have been the subject of a single AP report.
Moreover, Issawi is just one of a multitude of Palestinian hunger strikers, almost all ignored by U.S. media. Another, Ayman Sharawna, whose fast was interrupted for a short period, has been on a strike that, in total, is even longer that Issawi’s.

Amnesty International has also been inexplicably negligent.

I have just been informed that Amnesty International plans to issue an announcement about Issawi today. If it does so, this will be its first one on Issawi. In fact, during a hunger strike that lasted over six months, queries to Amnesty and searches of both the American and British websites, have turned up only one mention of him – in the last paragraph of an alert about other prisoners posted on the British site. It is not on the U.S. site.
Phone calls and emails over the past week to Amnesty’s Washington DC, New York, and London offices failed to elicit any information on Issawi or Amnesty’s decision not to alert the public to his situation. (Finally, unable to obtain a response from Amnesty, a few days ago I posted their lack of coverage on Facebook.)
While pro-Israel groups constantly attack Amnesty for insufficiently taking the Israeli line, in reality Amnesty’s record on the Middle East, North Africa, and Afghanistan is often significantly at odds with the organization’s work on behalf of prisoners and human rights in other areas.
There have been analyses and objections to Amnesty actions that appeared to, in the words of one article, “shill for Mideast Wars.” Its executive director Suzanne Nossel spoke in favor of what she termed “hard force,” e.g. wars.
Nossel emphasized that at the top of Amnesty’s list was “defense of Israel,” despite Israel’s long list of violent aggression, ethnic cleansing, and human rights violations. Nossel blasted the UN report on Gaza’s 2008-9 massacre in Gaza as “not supported by facts,” despite massive evidence both in that report and and many others that its statements about Israel were quite accurate, if not slightly tilted toward Israel.
A lengthy article in CounterPunch examined Amnesty’s emphasis (and inaccurate coverage) on the Pussy Riot issue, and compared this to Amnesty’s lack of coverage on the incarceration of whistle blower Julian Assange and on other significant cases.
A 1988 analysis on human rights organizations’ work on Israel-Palesse: http://www.blogger.com/statimings in Amnesty’s work, and in January 2012 Dutch-English writer Paul de Rooij complained of Amnesty’s “double standards” on Palestinian human rights.
In an email exchange with Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, de Rooij wrote that Amnesty’s “unwillingness to publish lists” of Palestinian Prisoners of Conscience and the extreme rarity of applying this designation to Palestinian prisoners “indicate that Palestinians can’t expect much from Amnesty International.”
De Rooij continued: “The brutal treatment and dispossession of Palestinians has been going on for decades; the situation is chronic and it has been systematic. But check for yourself in Amnesty’s reports or press releases: when was the last time that AI unambiguously indicated that Israeli actions amounted to crimes against humanity?”
De Rooij answered his own question: “You can count such instances with less than half the fingers on your hand.”
Susanne Nossel left Amnesty in January of this year and her replacement has not yet been chosen, so it is possible that its actions will change.
In the meantime, Samer Issawi’s life seems to be hanging by a thread.
Since Americans give Israel over $8 million per day, our tax money is helping to fund Israel’s actions. Those who wish to prevent at least one tragic death may wish to make their opinion known to the U.S. State Department (202-663-1848) and Associated Press (212.621.1500).

The name is also sometimes given as Samer Al-Issawi or Al-Eesawy. 
Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew and president of the Council for the National Interest. She can be reached at contact@ifamericansknew.org.

Amnesty International, Withdraw Your Endorsement of Arch Enemy

source: http://boycottisrael.info/content/amnesty-international-withdraw-your-endorsement-arch-enemy

On the 24th of January, the Swedish Metal band, Arch Enemy, is scheduled to perform in Israel. This performance is part of an international tour, endorsed by Amnesty International as part of their “End Repression-Protect Freedom of Expression” campaign. After many private and public correspondences with the band and petitions to Amnesty International, we’ve come to see that public pressure must be applied on the organization. 
There are several ways you can help!
1. Write a letter to Amnesty International. You can use the suggestion letter below. Letters are to be emailed to: 
aimember@aiusa.org, aiusama@aiusa.org, aiusamw@aiusa.org, aiusane@aiusa.org, aiusaso@aiusa.org, aiusasf@aiusa.org, orit@amnesty.org.il, info@amnesty.se, press@amnesty.org
2. Let everybody know you’re taking action and invite them to join you on Facebook and Twitter. You can use these suggestion posts:


Facebook: I’m writing to Amnesty International, to demand they pull their endorsement from the Arch Enemy concert in apartheid Israel! http://tinyurl.com/7a2pw6z
(you can tag: @Amnesty International @Amnesty International USA @Amnesty International Sverige @Amnesty International Danmark @Amnesty @International Nederland @Íslandsdeild Amnesty International @Amnesty)
Twitter: @AmnestyOnline @Art4Amnesty don’t endorse Arch Enemy’s concert in apartheid Israel! http://tinyurl.com/7a2pw6z
(Other tagging options: @Amnesty_IN @Amnesty_Israel @NewsFromAmnesty @amnestypress @AIUKMEG @SalilShetty @jpmlynch @robwinder @neilsai @demanddignity @Amnesty_Int_Dbn)
Dear Amnesty International,
I hold Amnesty International’s worldwide work for human rights and international law in high esteem. For this reason, I was very troubled to learn that Amnesty International has agreed to endorse Arch Enemy’s world wide tour, as part of its “End Repression-Protect Freedom of Expression” campaign, which includes a performance in Israel.  It is doubly troubling, as Amnesty International has been faced with this choice before. I applauded you then, when you chose to heed the call of your members and the international community in general, to disassociate yourself from Leonard Cohen’s tour, because of his performance in Israel. And it is for that reason exactly that I can’t understand why you would endorse a similar tour and choose to ignore all public or private petitions for you not to do so. 
I call on you to be true to Amnesty International’s values, distance yourself from efforts to normalize Israel’s occupation and apartheid, and immediately withdraw support for Arch Enemy’s ill-conceived concert in Israel.
By supporting Arch Enemy’s concert, Amnesty International will be subverting the worldwide movement to boycott Israel, a non-violent, effective effort by Palestinian and international civil society to end Israel’s violations of international law and human rights principles. By this endorsement, Amnesty International consciously goes beyond “staying neutral”,  aiding and abetting Israel in keeping a semblance of a democratic state, in which expressing one’s opinion is allowed, when in fact Amnesty International itself has documented and expressed its concern, many times over, about the violation of the basic rights of freedom of expression and assembly, of both the Palestinian population under Israel’s military regime in the occupied territories, and the citizens of Israel who express their disapproval of the state’s policies.
I quote the  letter-writing campaign that was addressed to you, regarding Leonard Cohen, and stress that this is in fact the same situation:
Ninety-three artists, writers and other cultural workers have signed onto the Palestinian cultural boycott call. Many dignitaries signed the “No Reason to Celebrate” pledge and refused to participate in any artistic or literary event during Israel’s year-long 60th anniversary celebrations.
In his protest resignation from Amnesty International over this issue, Irish author and composer Raymond Deane wrote:
“By assisting Cohen in his ruse to bypass this boycott, Amnesty International is in fact taking a political stance, in violation of the premise of political neutrality with which it so regularly justifies its failure to side unambiguously with the oppressed. Amnesty is telling us: resistance is futile, the voice of the oppressed is irrelevant, international humanitarian law is a luxury.”
Thank you for your attention to this vital human rights issue. I look forward to learning of Amnesty International’s withdrawal of its endorsement of the Arch Enemy concert in Israel.
Sincerely,

[Your Name]

*Click to read BOYCOTT!'s letter to Amnesty.

Amnesty International, One Struggle for Freedom Must Not Undermine Another

source: http://boycottisrael.info/content/amnesty-international-one-struggle-freedom-must-not-undermine-another

To Amnesty International,

We are a group of citizens of Israel who support the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights. Some of us are members of Amnesty International and we're deeply troubled by your endorsement of the Swedish Metal band, Arch Enemy, which is scheduled to give a gig in Israel, despite its record of violating international law and human rights.

We applaud your tireless documentation of abuses of human rights world-wide and the actions you take to bring them to an end. As you very well know, freedom of expression has never been granted to Palestinians by the Israeli military regime. This is evident from the most recent example of the brutal repression of demonstrations against the apartheid wall and settlements in the West Bank, where Mustafa Tamimi was shot to death in the head with a high velocity gas projectile from zero range (http://youtu.be/69GCTj6_BZs).
So many Palestinian activists, many of whom are still in Israeli prisons, are held under "administrative" arrest for weeks and months, in violation of international law and their human rights. We would like to remind you in particular of two arrests that occurred in late 2009:

1. Abdallah Abu Rahma, whom the army tried to convict for “possession of arms”, when in fact an art exhibition was held in his home: A peace-sign constructed from used gas canisters that the army uses every week against the villagers of Bil’in

2. Mohammad Othman, who was arrested for the crime of talking. At the time, this is what Amnesty International had to say:
“Amnesty International said it is concerned that Abdallah Abu Rahma and Mohammed Othman have been detained solely on account of legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression in opposing the Israeli fence/wall.” http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/israel-must-stop-harassment-and-detention-palestianian-activists

Amnesty international has also been very supportive of our own group, as we are gradually being targeted by the policies of the Israeli government as well. There is no need to explain to you that we knowingly commit a civil offense in writing this letter. Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa stated this very clearly:
“Despite proponents’ claims to the contrary, [the boycott] law is a blatant attempt to stifle peaceful dissent and campaigning by attacking the right to freedom of expression, which all governments must uphold.” http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/israel-anti-boycott-law-attack-freedom-expression-2011-07-12

We have absolutely no doubt that the Palestinian people were also on your mind, when you launched your  “End Repression-Protect Freedom of Expression” campaign. We have absolutely no doubt of the importance of raising awareness about the political prisoners of Yodok in North Korea or the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. However, we must stress that one struggle for freedom must not undermine another.

Your sponsorship of Arch Enemy, who are scheduled to perform in Israel in March, will directly violate the Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Hundreds of Palestinian unions, associations, NGOs, institutes, political parties, and groups are asking international artists not to perform in Israel (certainly not in commercial venues), until Israel ends its violations of human rights. Therefore, your sponsorship undermines the Palestinian civil society struggle for equality. liberation and self determination.

In view of this, we ask that you either
1. Withdraw your endorsement of Arch Enemy's concert in Israel (as you have done before with Leonard Cohen - http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1080) and publicly distance Amnesty International from Arch Enemy’s decision to perform in Israel and express serious reservation about their undermining of Palestinian struggle.

or

2. Assist the band to convey their important message in a way that will not violate the Palestinian civil society BDS call, and will not serve to whitewash Israel's  violations of human rights through a false image of “cultural diversity” and “freedom of expression”.

We would be interested in your comments.
Sincerely,

BOYCOTT! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from Within

Amnesty International "whitewashes" Israeli Navy's crimes

source: http://fishingunderfire.blogspot.com/2011/12/amnesty-international-whitewashes.html

Finally, after 3 years of efforts from international activists (ISM, Free Gaza Movement, CPSGaza), Amnesty International decided to pay some attention on the issue of Gaza fishermen. In the episode 7 of Amnesty TV, by Amnesty UK, there is a 3:51 part concering Gaza fishermen. (Go to 1:47).

http://tv.amnesty.org.uk/episodes/episode-seven/the_facts/



But all we see on this video is an Israeli gunboat aproaching and just... calling 2 fishermen in a small boat, accompanied by foreign hebrew speaking journalists, to go closer to the beach.

Is it just this what is really happening to the Gaza fishermen?

Where are the images of Gaza fishermen killed by the Israeli Navy?

Mohammed Nadi Saleh al-'Attar (picture from In Gaza blog)

Where do we hear the voice of the families of killed fishermen?




Where do we see in Amnesty´s video, the injured fishermen?








Where do we see in Amnesty's video the Gaza fishermen mutilated by Israeli gunfire?




Where do we see in Amnesty's video the fishing boats with dozens of bullet holes?






Where do we see in Amnesty's video, the fishing boats incinerated after Israeli shelling?




Where do we see in Amnesty's video, the fishing boats rammed by Israeli gunboats?





Where do we see in Amnesty's video, the Israeli gunboats shooting at the nets of the fishing boats? And bullets found inside the fishing boat...




Where do we see in Amnesty's video, the Israli gunboats throwing explosives near the fishing boats and spraying the fishermen and the catch of fishes with unknown biological or chemical liquid?




Where do we see in Amnesty's video, the Israeli gunboats firing shells, machinegun fire, tracer bullets and water from watercannon?




Where do we see in Amnesty's video, international activists injured by shattered glass during watercannon attacks?




Where do we see in Amnesty's video, the international accompaniment boat Oliva, attacked with watercannon by Israeli gunboats?






Where do we see in Amnesty's video, the Gaza fishermen who have been abducted, detained and abused, in order to become spies?





If small organizations with few activists like ISM, Free Gaza Movement or CPSGaza and a few Palestinian or foreign journalists, have managed to show the real life of Gaza fishermen, why can't the biggest human rights organization in the world, with 3 million members and a huge budget, do the same? And why Amnesty International didn't use some of this footage for the report on Gaza fishermen?
After seeing all these images, you can understand why Amnesty's report (of Israeli Navy just... shouting to the Palestinian fishermen), can be considered rather a "whitewash" of Israeli Navy's crimes, than a decent human rights report...

kaxlan2009

(The opinions expressed in this post are of  kaxlan2009, the administrator of Fishing Under Fire, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other international activists who have worked or still working with Gaza fishermen)

Reply to Malcolm Smart about AI's double standards

This is Paul de Rooij´s reply to Amnesty International Malcolm Smart´s explanations on the accusations of double standards in Prisoners of Conscience list

source: http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0133864.html

Malcolm Smart
Amnesty International – International Secretariat
Peter Benenson House
1 Easton Street
London WC1X ODW

[Address deleted]
11 August 2010

Dear Mr. Malcolm Smart;
Many thanks for your kind and detailed explanation about Prisoner of Conscience lists and the double standard that you claim isn't one. Instead of "putting my mind at rest" your letter actually raises several questions. Allow me to follow-up.

1. You write:

   Some of those held under such orders are prisoners of conscience and we can be sure of that, but it is uncertain in many other cases whether individual detainees are to be considered prisoners of conscience, according to the common criteria used by Amnesty International, or not. By its nature, the Israeli administrative detention system is a secretive process, in that the grounds for detention are not specified in detail to the detainee or his/her legal representative; inevitably, this makes it especially difficult for the detainee to challenge the order for, by example, contesting the grounds on which the detention was made. In the same way, it makes it difficult or impossible for Amnesty International to make a conclusive determination in many cases whether a particular administrative detainees can be considered a prisoner of conscience or not.

   This is laughable. So, Israel throws people in jail with (1) no charges; (2) for an indeterminate time span; (3) under an illegitimate legal framework; and (4) often without adequate legal representation or opportunity to appeal. The targets of the so-called "administrative detention" are activists and other people who seek to organize their communities. Now you state, given that Israel doesn't spell out the charges against a prisoner, AI is thus unable to issue its famous POC designation. In other words, there will be no letter writing campaign for many such individuals. All Israel has to do is to keep its "evidence secret" and not to make any charges, and presto, AI will keep quiet about such persons.
2. You also don't make the list available because the list may be "incomplete"... Well, at present we don't know if there are any Palestinian POCs, and Palestinian prisoners know that Amnesty isn't doing anything for them. A few months ago Amir Makhoul was imprisoned and all Philip Luther could state was that "...If this is the case, we would regard him as a prisoner of conscience". It is not the case that he is now being considered POC, but AI could consider him so – maybe at a future date. Isn't this rather pathetic?
3. Many Palestinians are protesting the construction of the wall on their land and they have used non-violence as a key aspect of their campaign. Even so, the Israelis brutally repress the demonstrations and conduct regular night-time harassment. Could you please explain why aren't some of the imprisoned leaders of this movement even mentioned by AI? One of the leaders of the Bil'in demonstrations is in jail at present; what are you doing for him?
4. You write that other Palestinian prisoners "serving sentences for politically-related crime." Under international law an occupied or colonized population has a right to resist. Most Palestinian prisoners are in prison for acts of resistance or for membership in groups which advocate resistance. It is only in the eyes of their oppressor that this constitutes "a crime". I would hope that AI would refrain from such labelling. And what does AI do for the other prisoners, those who have resisted?
5. And why make the Cuban list public? Couldn't you apply the same argument about incomplete lists to withhold the Cuban list? And why consider some of the Cuban prisoners as POC at all? A large number of them received funding from the United States – a hostile state – and Cubans would rightly view recipients of tainted funds as traitors.
6. Could you kindly clarify this: if a Palestinian were ever to throw a stone at soldiers, would this disqualify him from ever obtaining a "POC" designation when he is imprisoned? Where can one read about the conditions necessary to be considered a POC?

I am sorry, but your letter simply confirmed that Amnesty International pursues a double standard when covering Palestinian human rights. The paucity of reportage, the unwillingness to utter condemnations against Israel, impotence of some of its actions, an unwillingness to publish lists of POCs, and the rare designation of the POC status indicate that Palestinians can't expect much from Amnesty International. The brutal treatment and dispossession of Palestinians has been going on for decades; the situation is chronic and it has been systematic. But check for yourself in Amnesty's reports or press releases: when was the last time that AI unambiguously indicated that Israeli actions amounted to crimes against humanity? Hint: you can count such instances with less than half the fingers on your hand.

Disappointed
Paul de Rooij

Letter Malcolm Smart (AI) to Paul de Rooij re: double standards on POC lists

source: http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0133223.html

To: Paul de Rooij
[address deleted]
09 August 2010

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT
Peter Benenson House. 1 Easton Street,
London WC1X OOW, United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)20 7413 5500 F: +44 (0)20 7956 1157
E: amnestyis@amnesty.org W: www.amnesty.org

Dear Paul
Thank you for your letter dated 11 July addressed to Salil Shetty, who took up office as Secretary General of Amnesty International at the beginning of July.
Salil has asked me to respond on his behalf and to thank you for your kind expression of congratulations to him. You ask whether Amnesty International is applying a double standard because we regularly list the cases of prisoners of conscience in Cuba on our website but do not simultaneously publish a list of Palestinian prisoners of conscience held by the Israeli authorities.
We are not applying a double standard and nor, as your assertion of that seems to imply, are we giving relatively less priority or attention to the cases of Palestinians detained by Israel. The two country situations - Cuba and Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories - are very different and with regard to each we pursue strategies that are developed with a view to ensuring that our work for prisoners of conscience and other victims of human rights violations is as effective as possible. In other words, with regard to Cuba, we consider it strategically useful and effective to maintain and make public an up to date list of prisoners of conscience.
The same is not true for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, There, as you rightly say, many Palestinians opposed to the Israeli occupation are imprisoned under administrative detention orders (with an even greater number, of course, serving sentences for politically-related crimes). These orders are of fixed duration but may be reimposed to permit continuous detention, in some cases for a year or more. Some of those held under such orders are prisoners of conscience and we can be sure of that, but it is uncertain in many other cases whether individual detainees are to be considered prisoners of conscience, according to the common criteria used by Amnesty International, or not. By its nature, the Israeli administrative detention system is a secretive process, in that the grounds for detention are not specified in detail to the detainee or his/her legal representative; inevitably, this makes it especially difficult for the detainee to challenge the order for, by example, contesting the grounds on which the detention was made. In the same way, it makes it difficult or impossible for Amnesty International to make a conclusive determination in many cases whether a particular administrative detainees can be considered a prisoner of conscience or not.
Clearly, if we were to publish a list of prisoners of conscience held in administrative detention in Israel it would almost certainly be inaccurate or incomplete. It would not be in the best interests of administrative detainees held by Israel if we were to do this - some who are or believe themselves to be prisoners of conscience might be missed off because we had obtained insufficient information about their cases and this could understandably cause unnecessary distress to them, their families and others.
In other words, the situation as regards Cuba is different and we do not consider bound to follow the same practice as regards detainees and prisoners held by Israel simply because of the Cuba example, particularly when we consider that this would not be in the best interests of the Palestinian prisoners of concern to Amnesty International who are being held by Israel.
That said, I can assure you that we take up a number of cases of administrative detainees and our membership campaigns on those both in their own right and as exemplars, and against the very abusive system of administrative detention that Israel maintains.
However, you may see from our website that we also undertake many other initiatives on behalf of victims of human rights violations and breaches if international humanitarian law in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where general conditions, I would suggest to you, are quite different than those in Cuba and marked by a much greater degree of both political volatility and violence. The work that we have done on the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel last year, in particular in support of the Goldstone Report and its call for full accountability and justice, and in opposition to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which we have roundly condemned as a form of collective punishment, are two of the major themes to which I would draw your attention. These, of course, have no parallel in Cuba, fortunately, but they serve to illustrate that the country situations are quite different, posing very different human rights challenges and, therefore, I strongly contend, different strategies for addressing those challenges.
I hope this clarifies and goes at least some way towards putting your mind at rest. Thanks again for raising this.

Malcolm Smart
[signed]
Director Middle East and North Africa Programme

And here you can read Paul de Rooij´s reply

Amnesty International Withdraws from Leonard Cohen’s Israel Concert Fund

source: http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1080

Media Contacts: pacbi@pacbi.org, info@boycottisraelnyc.org

New York, NY, August 18 – Amnesty International has announced today that it will abstain from any involvement in the Leonard Cohen concert in Tel Aviv and will not be party to any fund that benefits from the concert‘s proceeds. A number of media accounts had reported that Amnesty International was to manage or otherwise partner in a fund created from the proceeds of Cohen’s concert in Israel that would be used to benefit Israeli and Palestinian groups. Amnesty International’s announcement today followed an international outcry over the human rights organization’s reported involvement in the Leonard Cohen concert fund, and an earlier international call for Cohen to boycott apartheid Israel.

Omar Barghouti from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) commented, “We welcome Amnesty International’s withdrawal from this ill-conceived project which is clearly intended to whitewash Israel’s violations of international law and human rights. By abandoning the Leonard Cohen project in Tel Aviv, Amnesty International has dealt Cohen and his public relations team a severe blow, denying them the cover of the organization’s prestige and respectability.”

A statement confirming Amnesty‘s withdrawal has now been posted on the Amnesty International website. 

After reports in late July that Amnesty International would manage a fund from the proceeds of Leonard Cohen’s concert in Israel, groups in occupied Palestine and around the world mobilized to pressure Amnesty International not to participate in such a fund. The Palestinian Non-governmental Organizations’ Network (PNGO) called in an August 11^th letter on Amnesty International to reject management of a fund that is to be created from the proceeds of Leonard  Cohen’s planned September concert in Israel.  The West Bank village of Bil’in had made a similar appeal to Amnesty International. An international campaign of about one thousand letters to Amnesty International called for Amnesty’s withdrawal from the Cohen concert initiative. The only Palestinian organization that was claimed to be a recipient of the fund had previously announced that it was not involved in the project. Additionally, a representative of the joint Palestinian Israeli group Combatants for Peace, another previously announced beneficiary of the Cohen concert fund, had informed the New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel in writing that the group had decided not to participate in the Leonard Cohen concert in Tel Aviv and not to accept any funds from its proceeds. 

PNGO explained in their letter to Amnesty International that Israel Discount Bank, a major sponsor of Cohen’s concert in Israel, “is involved in the construction and the continuation of the Israeli settlement project in the oPT [occupied Palestinian Territories]… These settlements built on Palestinian lands are illegal under international law and are considered as war crimes in the Fourth Geneva Convention.” PNGO added that Cohen’s “concert in Israel contributes in normalizing Israeli occupation and colonization policies.” In an August 9th letter to Amnesty International, the West Bank village of Bil’in, a leader in the Palestinian nonviolent resistance movement, said that, “Israel Discount Bank’s trading room and other computer services are run by an Israeli company called Matrix IT. Matrix IT’s trading room is located on our villages land stolen by the illegal settlement of Modiin Illit.”

Additionally, nineteen groups and organizations worldwide explained in an open  letter to Amnesty International that, “Being one of the world’s strongest proponents of human rights and international law, you shall thus be subverting a non-violent, effective effort by Palestinian and international civil society to end Israel‘s violations of international law and human rights principles.” The groups asserted that, “Accepting funds from the proceeds of Cohen’s concert in Israel is the equivalent of Amnesty accepting funds from a concert in Sun City in apartheid South Africa.” They also commented that the Peres Center for Peace, Amnesty International’s announced partner in managing the concert fund, “has been denounced by leading Palestinian civil society organizations for promoting joint Palestinian-Israeli projects that enhance ‘Israeli institutional reputation and legitimacy, without restoring justice to Palestinians.’”

On August 5^th, eleven groups launched a letter writing campaign to Amnesty International which has resulted in hundreds of emails sent. Among those urging Amnesty International to reject involvement with the Cohen concert are former Amnesty International USA board member Prof. Naseer Aruri, Amnesty International USA’s former Midwest Regional Director Doris Strieter, peace activist Kathy Kelly, and a number of Amnesty International members.   

The announcement of Cohen’s planned concert in Israel was swiftly met by letters from British, Israeli and Palestinian organizations and protests at his concerts in New York, Boston, Ottawa and Belfast, among other cities, calling on Cohen to respect the international call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. In response to the protests, Cohen had tried to schedule a small concert in Ramallah to “balance” his concert in Israel. However, Palestinians rejected the Ramallah concert, insisting that Cohen should first cancel his Tel Aviv gig to be welcomed in Ramallah.

With the international community failing to take action to stop Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people, and inspired by the international boycott movement that helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa, Palestinian civil society has launched calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including an institutional academic and cultural boycott. Ninety-three artists, writers and other cultural workers have signed onto the Palestinian cultural boycott call. Palestinian boycott calls have inspired a growing international boycott movement which gained added momentum following Israel’s assault on Gaza last winter.

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)

and

New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel (NYCBI)

Posted on 18-08-2009

Leonard Cohen and Amnesty International - An Unholy Alliance

source: http://www.zcommunications.org/leonard-cohen-and-amnesty-international-an-unholy-alliance-by-tali-shapiro By Tali Shapiro at Aug 01, 2009

I always talk about Israeli pacifists and their inability to see the barriers they place on the Palestinian road to justice, dignity, and human rights. Today I'd like to talk about a much more appalling occurrence; Amnesty International supporting Leonard Cohen's breach of the boycott of Israel.

The Leonard Cohen Myth
Personally, it's hard for me to understand the disillusionment of pro-Palestinian Leonard Cohen fans. In the history of his involvement with Israel, Cohen has always sided with Israel, or made statements of officially taking no sides, when his side was rather obvious:

"I don't want to speak of wars or sides ... Personal process is one thing, it's blood, it's the identification one feels with their roots and their origins. The militarism I practice as a person and a writer is another thing. ... I don't wish to speak about war." 

In case I'm misconstruing my information, I'll repeat the quote I've embedded on my front page and have, personally, had no choice but to live by:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
~ Desmund Tutu

In Cohen's most recent history, he is consistent. He refuses to take a side, thus siding with the oppressor. Cohen has received a letter from many organizations (originated with PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel), asking him not to preform in Israel. As response, typically trying to balance out a situation in which balance is not there to be found, Cohen decided to preform for the Palestinian Prisoners‘ Club Society. The Society declined to entertain Cohen's notions of equality:

"We are now pleased to announce that we have received confirmation from the Palestinian Prisoners‘ Club Society that they will not be hosting Leonard Cohen in Ramallah.  A strong consensus has emerged among all parties concerned that Cohen is not welcome in Ramallah as long as he insists on performing in Tel Aviv, even though it had been claimed that Cohen would dedicate his concert in Palestine to the cause of Palestinian prisoners.  Ramallah will not receive Cohen as long as he is intent on whitewashing Israel‘s colonial apartheid regime by performing in Israel."

The Problem with the International Centrist
As if all this wasn't enough, Cohen was dead-set on clearing his conscious:

"All of the net proceeds from Leonard Cohen's September 24 concert at Ramat Gan Stadium will be earmarked for a newly established fund to benefit Israeli and Palestinian organizations that are working toward conciliation..."

The above quote is taken from non-other than the very-Zionist Jerusalem Post. Here's another quote from the same article:

"Attempting to maneuver through the barbed wire of both Israeli and US tax laws to enable the organizations to benefit from the concert, Kory realized that an intermediary neutral vehicle would be required to facilitate the financial funneling. He approached Amnesty International for advice, and the concept of a special fund was raised."

In other words, trooper Cohen maneuvered through the barbed wire with the assistance of the Amnesty International brigade. How poetic. How utterly embarrassing for Amnesty International to be portrayed favorably by the Jerusalem Post.

I understand big groups like Amnesty International have to be diplomatic and must exercise impartiality, and quite frankly I respect the ability to do so. However, being diplomatic doesn't mean endorsing pseudo-diplomatic initiatives, especially when they are completely avoidable, as in the case of Leonard Cohen.

To refrain from repeating myself, here's my own attempt at diplomacy, that I sent to Amnesty International (at the event of a response, I will update):

"Hello Amnesty International,

I'm a big supporter of Amnesty International and a regular donation contributor. As an Israeli citizen- who opposes the occupation and violence wreaked by my government, army and countrymen on the Palestinian people, and supports the international movement to boycott Israel- I am appalled that Amnesty USA might break the boycott efforts. The international community has set the terms for the Palestinian struggle and rightfully made it clear that no violence will be tolerated. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has done a wonderful job in stating the terms of the BDS campaign- I don't have to tell you what a huge commitment to a long-term strategy of non-violence that is. Terms which seem very fair and have been accepted around the world as the guidelines for this world-wide initiative.

When Leonard Cohen decided to come to Israel, PACBI made themselves clear, once again, that it is unacceptable, under the guidelines of a cultural boycott. As I'm sure you know, Cohen tried to appease PACBI by scheduling a show in Ramallah, which PACBI rejected. There is no need to be balanced in a situation that balance doesn't occur. Had Cohen canceled in Israel he would have been making a meaningful statement and propelled the boycott movement by sheer power of his fame. Performing in both Israel and the Occupied Territories is a wishy-washy peace-faking statement, the kind that Israeli "peace" groups have been making, in order to stroke their own sensibilities, meanwhile marginalizing the other organizations (Palestinian, Israeli and International), who believe in the importance of keeping one's stand, when it comes to the BDS initiative. "Peace" is a word that has lost all meaning in Israel, we demand human rights instead.

To find that Amnesty International might support this damaging endeavor is shocking, for me, but I take it you decided upon it with the best of intentions. Since I don't expect you to understand the inner workings of the Israeli Center-Left and its psychological motives, I urge you to consider simple facts: Leonard Cohen preforming in Israel breaches the cultural boycott and normalizes the occupation. This is not something that should be supported by Amnesty International. It is morally wrong and diplomatically wrong. The boycott movement must stick to a standard of "no business as usual", in order to be effective. I urge you to reconsider.

Awaiting your reply,
Tali Shapiro
"

What's Wrong with Balance?
If some of you are wondering how donating the proceeds of the concert to both Israeli and Palestinian organizations is a "damaging endeavor", here's PACBI's words:

"PACBI has always rejected any attempt to "balance" concerts or other artistic events in Israel--conscious acts of complicity in Israel‘s violation of international law and human rights--with token events in the occupied Palestinian territory. Such attempts at "parity" not only immorally equate the oppressor with the oppressed, taking a neutral position on the oppression (thereby siding with the oppressor, as Desmond Tutu famously said); they also are an insult to the Palestinian people, as they assume that we are naive enough to accept such token shows of "solidarity" that are solely intended to cover up grave acts of collusion in whitewashing Israel‘s crimes. Those sincerely interested in defending Palestinian rights and taking a moral and courageous stance against the Israeli occupation and apartheid should not play Israel, period. That is the minimum form of solidarity Palestinian civil society has called for."

And some wonderful words from Irish composer and novelist Raymond Deane:

"What could any reasonable person have against "programs for peace"?... By assisting Cohen in his ruse to bypass this boycott, Amnesty International is in fact taking a political stance, in violation of the premise of political neutrality with which it so regularly justifies its failure to side unambiguously with the oppressed. Amnesty is telling us: resistance is futile, the voice of the oppressed is irrelevant, international humanitarian law is a luxury."

In my words: I've long covered the problematic programs and people that dare call themselves "peacemakers". I'm thought of as the extreme of the extreme, in Israel, but if asking for unconditional human rights is extreme, then I am a proud extremists. Many on the self-proclaimed Left are easy to spot, their key phrase is:

"They deserve human rights/freedom/their own country, but..."

This "but" is a fearful one, rooted in a deeply ingrained and denied racism. The people who say this are well aware of Israel's crimes- past and present, and yet still afraid of what may happen, once we let the "two legged beasts" out of their cage, whether they call Palestinians that, or not. In my journey of discovering the truth behind Israel, I've realized some things are not negotiable. That is human rights and as a result, this boycott.



Learning from the Cohen/Amnesty Debacle
As the Zionist propaganda machine goes into overdrive, we may find new claims, resulting in the Cohen/Amnesty debacle. For now, Israelis are generally unaware of the international boycott against their state, already underway. Last time I observed any mention of this in the mainstream media was during Cast Lead, when Channel 10 aired the typically condescending and ignorant Before you boycott Israel! video. (Unfortunately, I couldn't find this article in their archives.) Nothing more responsible than your main stream media instilling blind confidence in you, when an international boycott of your country is rapidly developing.

I can't predict the creativity of the Zionist mind, but I'm expecting that when the boycott is finally made clear to Israelis, the first rebuttals will be that nothing is enough for those "demanding" Palestinians, and even when the "reasonable" and "unbiassed" offer to give a little to both sides is made, they still "demand the whole arm". These kinds of underhanded remarks are exactly why I decided to document the Cohen/Amnesty incident.

There should be no questions as to what the boycott's goals or guidelines are. Some areas are unclear to many, and these cases should be studied. But to those who are unclear, I direct you again to PACBI, who are the Palestinian voice on the issue of the boycott, and have articulated their terms thoroughly. When in doubt, contrast and compare your specific case to their statements. Implementing a boycott on Israel isn't as hard as Zionist propaganda would like you to think. The best way to deal with the occupation army is to arm yourself with knowledge.

Update 08.08.09:
Bil'in is always a personal issue for me. Here's their letter to Amnesty, in light of the Cohen debacle:

"
Dear Amnesty International,

We, members of the Bil'in popular committee against the wall and settlements, have always appreciated Amnesty International's role in the defense of human rights around the world and have recognized you as partners in our own struggle to defend our rights. We remember with great pleasure and pride your December, 2006 visit to our village to witness one of our protests.  For these reasons we were surprised and deeply disturbed to learn that Amnesty International is sponsoring Leonard Cohen's upcoming concert in Israel.

We were disturbed not only because supporting Cohen's concert works against the wide grassroots Palestinian nonviolent initiative calling for the cultural boycott of Israel until it adheres to its obligations under international law, but because Amnesty's support for the concert  hurts us in Bil'in personally and directly.

Leonard Cohen's concert, that Amnesty is sponsoring, is being handled by Israel Discount Bank. Israel Discount Bank's trading room and other computer services are run by an Israeli company called Matrix IT. Matrix IT's trading room is located on our villages land stolen by the illegal settlement of Modiin Illit (http://www.whoprofits.org/Company%20Info.php?id=633). Israel Discount Bank has also financed the similar construction of some of the building projects in the settlements of Har Homa, Beitar Illit and Ma'ale Adumim. Additionally, the Discount Bank is the second major shareholder of Mul-T-Lock, whose factory is located in industrial zone of Barkan, another illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank (http://www.whoprofits.org/Company%20Info.php?id=558).

We are sure that you and Amnesty International were not aware of these facts. Otherwise we are confident that Amnesty would not be involved in supporting an endeavor that profits directly from the abuse of our rights. We are confident that now that this was brought to your attention you will withdraw Amnesty's support. Furthermore, we encourage Amnesty to examine more closely any project that you plan to support in Israel in the future because, unfortunately, the Israeli economy as a whole is currently benefiting from the abuse of Palestinian rights..

In Bil'in we are currently facing a new wave of oppression against our popular campaign against the Wall and settlement built on our land. The Israeli occupation forces are frequently raiding our village at night and abducting people, mostly children, from their homes. The members of our committee are being targeted. Currently two leading non violent activists and organizers Mohammed Khatib and Adib Abu Rahme, along with seventeen other Bil'in residents, are  imprisoned by the Israeli military. We are counting on your continued support for our struggle and  are certain that you will not allow Amnesty International to lend its support to the violations of our rights.

In solidarity,

The Bil'in Popular Committee
"

Resigning from Cohen and Amnesty

sources: http://pulsemedia.org/2009/07/30/resigning-from-cohen-and-amnesty/

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/93361

July 30th, 2009 

Activists leafletting a Leonard Cohen concert in Liverpool

Renowned Irish composer and novelist Raymond Deane on the reasons why he has chosen to resign from Amnesty International. We encourage readers to follow Deane’s example. 

When I first – and belatedly – began fretting about human rights and political injustice in the wake of the 1990-91 Gulf War, I joined Amnesty International and started writing letters and cards to political prisoners and to a variety of Embassies.
Although I was subsequently drawn deeply into activism of a more explicitly political nature – particularly on the Israel/Palestine issue – I retained my Amnesty membership out of residual respect for the organisation, but also because I wished to be in a position to say “as an Amnesty member myself, I completely disagree with the organisation’s stance on…” (fill in the dots as appropriate).
On 30th July I read the “Open Letter to Amnesty International” from 10 admirable organisations involved in seeking justice for the Palestinian people, ranging from PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel) through the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign to the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network. This letter was prompted by Amnesty’s decision to sponsor “a new fund that will whitewash the money raised at [Leonard] Cohen’s concert in Israel by using it to finance programs for ‘peace.’”
What could any reasonable person have against “programs for peace”? Well, one answer is that these include the Peres Center for Peace, described by the Israeli paper Ha’aretz as a “patronizing and colonial” organization that trains “the Palestinian population to accept its inferiority and… to guarantee the ethnic superiority of the Jews”, and the Israel Discount Bank, which has branches in three illegal Jewish settlements and hence functions in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Another answer is even simpler: Leonard Cohen should heed the call from the oppressed Palestinian people not to perform in Israel until that state dismantles its apartheid structures and complies with international law and international humanitarian law, ends the occupation and colonisation of Palestinian territories, and concedes the inalienable Palestinian right of return. By assisting Cohen in his ruse to bypass this boycott, Amnesty International is in fact taking a political stance, in violation of the premise of political neutrality with which it so regularly justifies its failure to side unambiguously with the oppressed. Amnesty is telling us: resistance is futile, the voice of the oppressed is irrelevant, international humanitarian law is a luxury.
I was one of the organizers of the protests held outside Leonard Cohen’s four recent Dublin concerts (19th, 20th, 22nd, 23d July) in which we called upon the singer not to perform in Tel Aviv, using the text of his 1960s classic “Please don’t pass me by” to deliver a demand for solidarity and engagement with the Palestinian people and against their oppressor, the Zionist Israeli state.
I used to be a Cohen fan. Should Cohen continue with his plan to perform in Israel on 24th September next, I shall consign my Cohen albums to the charity shop, although I’ll do so with considerable grief and disillusionment. It is with similar feelings that today I have sent the following message to the Irish branch of Amnesty International:

To whom it conferns: I am terminating my membership of Amnesty. The last straw has been Amnesty’s decision to support a cynical scheme dreamt up by Leonard Cohen’s PR department to whitewash the fact that he is ignoring the call from Palestinian civil society to respect the cultural boycott of Israel. While I respect Amnesty’s policy of not supporting particular political positions and not itself participating in boycott campaigns, on this occasion it is actively supporting actions that undermine a boycott campaign supported by the Palestinians themselves, and doing so by lending support to Israeli organisations the raison d’etre of which is to seek “conciliation” without an end to oppression.
Sincerely – Raymond Deane.