Report: Turkey will host all exiled Palestinian prisoners

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- Turkey will take in the 40 Palestinian prisoners set for exile abroad as part of an exchange deal between Hamas and Israel, Turkish media reported on Friday.

Israel refused to deport the prisoners -- part of the first round of 450 set be released this week -- to Egypt, Lebanon or Syria, according to the report in Turkish daily Hurriyet.

Hamas and Israel agreed on Tuesday to exchange over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli solider Gilad Shalit.

Some 200 detainees will be exiled, 40 detainees overseas and 163 sent to Gaza.

The second phase of the prisoner release will be implemented after two months, Hamas politburo member Izzat al-Rishiq said on Thursday.

in full: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=429162

Another terrorist organization. They should feel right at home.

Does it taint their image in your eyes? LOL

"Dutch government places IHH on terror list"

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=218594

Accountability
Background
Military Police investigations
Administrative punishment
Administrative detention
House demolitions as punishment
Deportation
Destruction of property
Demolition of houses as punishment
Demolition for alleged military purposes
Planning and building
Detainees and prisoners
Administrative detention
Torture
East Jerusalem
Background
Legal Status
The Separation Barrier in Jerusalem
Family unification and child registration
Revocation of residency
Revocation of social rights
Planning, building and expropriation of land
Neglect of infrastructure and services
Gaza Strip
Background
The scope of Israeli control
Operation Cast Lead
Firing Qassam Rockets
The siege on Gaza
Rafah Crossing
Medical System
Inter-Palestinian clashes
Gilad Shalit
Hebron
Background
International Law
Background
International human rights law
International humanitarian law (Laws of war)
Jordan Valley
Background
Land
Water
Other resources
Land and water
Land expropriation and settlements
The water crisis
The Jordan Valley
Residency rights and deportation
Family separation
Deportation
Revocation of residency of Palestinians in East Jerusalem
Restrictions on movement
Background
Closure
Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads
Curfew
Effect on the economy
Medical treatment
Separation Barrier
Background
Opinion of the International Court of Justice
Israeli High Court of Justice ruling
Jerusalem
Settlements and Israeli civilians
Land expropriation and settlements
Attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians
Settler violence
East Jerusalem
Use of force
Beating and abuse
Use of firearms
Human shields
Violations by Palestinians
Severe human rights violations in intra-Palestinian clashes
Attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians
Harm to Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel
Death penalty in the Palestinian Authority
Workers from the territories
Background
Social rights

http://www.btselem.org/list_of_topics

NGO Monitor noted the contents and timing of a B’Tselem report released today, which claims to analyze “the mechanisms used to gain Israeli control of land in the West Bank for building the settlements.” B’Tselem, which receives extensive European governmental funding, maintains a lobbying office in Washington, and the release of this highly publicized report coincides with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama.

“Although B’Tselem claims to be a human rights organization, their reports and campaigns are primarily aimed at influencing Israeli politics and policies. B’Tselem maintains a very visible presence in Washington, and is actively involved in lobbying the U.S. government regarding policies on Gaza and the West Bank,” said Professor Gerald Steinberg, president of Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor.

“B’Tselem has removed the facade of a ‘human rights’ organization to reveal its political objectives, which focus on opposing Israeli government policy,” said Steinberg. “While opposition politics are a vital part of a healthy democracy, in B’Tselem’s case, this opposition is being financed and supported by European governments.” (B’Tselem acknowledges that Israel’s Ministry of Justice refused to respond to the report “in light of its political nature.”)

B’Tselem has received grants from the European Union, seven European governments, and NDC, a vehicle for additional Swedish, Swiss, Danish and Dutch NGO funding. This European support enables B’Tselem, an Israeli organization, to lobby the U.S. government.

“B’Tselem’s claims, particularly regarding international law, lack credibility. The complexities of history, including Arab warfare and rejection, are erased, and the legal arguments are selected to promote B’Tselem’s political objectives. Legal analyses that reach different conclusions are similarly erased in this report,” continued Steinberg.

“As is often the case for B’Tselem, Palestinians are defined as victims, incapable of independent moral and legal conduct. Israel is the only real actor in this imaginary world,” concluded Steinberg.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/b_tselem_report_reflects_political_agenda_european_funding

snip* Reception: In a 2004 article for the Political Research Associates, Jean Hardisty and Elizabeth Furdon describe NGO Monitor as a "conservative NGO watchdog group,...which focuses on perceived threats to Israeli interests", adding that "the ideological slant of NGO Monitor's work is unabashedly pro-Israeli. It does not claim to be a politically neutral examination of NGO activities and practices."<41>

In an op-ed published in 2005 by Forward, Leonard Fein, a former Professor of Politics and Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, takes issue with NGO Monitor's statement that Human Rights Watch (HRW) places “extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel” and has issued more reports about HRW than on any other of the 75 NGOs it concerns itself with. In his op-ed, Leonard Fein writes that HRW has devoted more attention to five other nations in the region — Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran — than they have to Israel; but that, despite extensive correspondence, Mr Steinberg has failed to correct the "misleading" statement about HRW on the NGO Watch website. Fein argues that NGO Monitor may not be free of the "narrow political and ideological preferences” of which it accuses HRW.<42> The Forward writes NGO Monitor says it has increased Human Right Watch's reporting on Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian authority while Human Rights Watch has rejected the statements and said it was dealing with counterterrorism in a post-9/11 world.<43>

Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch has criticized, in 2006, NGO Monitor for accusations against Human Right Watch and its "executive director, whose father fled Nazi Germany". Peratis took issue with an op-ed by NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg titled "Ken Roth's Blood Libel",<44> and argues those like NGO Monitor "who want selective exemption of Israel from the rules of war" may not "have faced the implications of getting what they wish for." Peratis further criticized NGO Monitor for not saying specifically where or when HRW statements have been unverifiable.<45>

In 2007, The Economist and Jewish Telegraphic Agency identify NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel non-governmental organization.<46><47>

Ittijah, Union of Arab Community Based Organisations in Israel, has said NGO Monitor represents the interests and the say of the Israeli state rather than civil society’s voice based on human rights values. Ittijah further states that NGO Monitor is guided by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<48>

Uriel Heilman, a Managing Editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and a senior reporter for the Jerusalem Post, wrote in an online opinion column that there were a "couple of disingenuous (read: inaccurate) elements" in the May 2009 digest of NGO Monitor. Heilman rhetorically asked whether the situation itself was "enough for Steinberg and NGO Monitor's followers without Steinberg having to stretch the truth?" Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO Monitor, later conceded the phrasing was confusing and revised the statement.<49>

In a 2009 opinion column he writes for The Jerusalem Post, Larry Derfner asserted that "NGO Monitor doesn't have a word of criticism for Israel, nor a word of acknowledgment, even grudging, for any detail in any human rights report that shows Israel to be less than utterly blameless. In fact, on the subject of Israel's human rights record, NGO Monitor doesn't have a word of disagreement with the Prime Minister's Office," he wrote.<50>

In July 2009, HRW issued a statement saying that "NGO Monitor...conducts no field investigations and condemns anyone who criticizes Israel".<51>

John H. Richardson, writing in Esquire Magazine's online magazine in 2009 described NGO Monitor as a "rabidly partisan organization that attacks just about anyone who dares to criticize Israel on any grounds." It notes that Steinberg is dedicate to fighting "the narrative war," and has made a "special project" of attacking Human Rights Watch.<52>

Didi Remez, a spokesperson for the Peace Now group and former consultant to BenOr Consulting,<53> (which was co-founded by Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street),<54> said NGO Monitor "is not an objective watchdog: It is a partisan operation that suppresses its perceived ideological adversaries through the sophisticated use of McCarthyite techniques – blacklisting, guilt by association and selective filtering of facts." <55>

David Newman, a professor of political geography at Ben-Gurion University, wrote an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post in 2009 criticizing NGO Monitor for attacking the transparency of human rights organizations while ignoring the murky funding and support for extremist settler organizations.<56>

NGO Monitor published a press release in 2010 regarding Electronic Intifada <57> focusing on a grant EI receives from the Dutch foundation ICCO. In response, Electronic Intifada wrote that "NGO Monitor is an extreme right-wing group with close ties to the Israeli government, military, West Bank settlers, a man convicted of misleading the US Congress, and to notoriously Islamophobic individuals and organizations in the United States."<58> Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Uri Rosenthal, told IKON radio, "anti-semitism was not the issue" but "my concern about calls to contribute to boycotts and embargoes", in an interview on 5 December about ICCO's support of The Electronic Intifada.<59>

Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post in December 2010 says that NGO Monitor is "an organization that investigates and sharply criticizes many self-described human rights groups as thinly disguised anti-Israel outfits."<60>

Forward, in an article written by Nathan Jeffay in January 2011, says that NGO Monitor is "Israel’s most prominent watchdog of human rights groups".<61>

The Australian refers to NGO Monitor as a "human rights watchdog."<62>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor

They're very politically biased.

Tsk, tsk.

She wanted the highest level decision-makers held accountable for the decisions they made on how to prosecute the conflict, including Military Advocate General (MAG) Mandelblit…Her aim, she said, was to make Israel weigh world opinion and consider whether it could “afford another operation like this.”

==========

B’Tselem Director Jessica Montell…estimated her 9 million NIS ($2.4 million) budget is 95 percent funded from abroad, mostly from European countries.

==========

During the past decade, as the New Israel Fund and European governments have funded and fueled the delegitimization war on Israel, critics have argued the NGOs they support have no real constituency in Israel; that they represent foreign interests; that they are funded — all told, the sum is around $100 million per year — almost entirely by foreign foundations and European governments seeking to impose their agendas; that they seek to overturn the democratic choices of the Israeli people; that they foment external pressure and “lawfare” to prevent Israel from protecting herself from threats; and that the groups’ activism is motivated not by the claimed values of human rights and international law, but by varying degrees of anti-Zionism and solidarity with Arab interests and leftist anti-Israel activism.

At every turn, the NGOs have angrily denied these charges and smeared those who made them as being (take your pick) anti-peace, anti-human rights, anti-democracy, or extremist right-wingers attempting to silence dissent.

It is a remarkable moment in this battle to see the NGOs admit in private the same things they slander their critics for saying about them in public.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/06/wikileaks-new-israel-fund-endorses-end-of-jewish-state/

Following a written assault against B’Tselem in Commentary Magazine, accusing it of being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” B’Tselem press officer Sarit Michaeli refutes his arguments point by point, showing that B’Tselem is widely regarded as essential to Israeli society

By Sarit Michaeli

There is an inherent contradiction in smear attacks such as Noah Pollak’s tirade against B’Tselem in the pages of Commentary. On the one hand Mr. Pollak would like to convince his readers that the world-respected B’Tselem – the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories – is an insignificant and alien fringe group in Israel. But this contradicts with the claim that the same B’Tselem is an awesome force, one that can almost singlehandedly trick Justice Goldstone into authoring a bogus report and that poses a mortal danger to Israel’s mere existence. Commentary’s website went even further, labeling B’Tselem: “The world’s most destructive anti-Israel organization.”

The truth is that B’Tselem’s limited, yet not negligible, strength stems precisely from the fact that the organization, its operations and its rationale are intrinsically Israeli. Certainly we are more Israeli than Americans who command us to march in lockstep with our government, while maintaining a healthy skepticism towards their own leaders. B’Tselem and the moral debate we stoke over our country’s human rights record are an inherent part of Israel’s culture, history and psyche. In that sense B’Tselem is as Israeli as felafel, although just like our national dish, it is not always easy to stomach.

Mr. Pollak’s article relies on irresponsible and manipulative paraphrasing of statements by B’Tselem and people affiliated with it, many twisted beyond recognition to advance re-hashed attacks, the most contemptible being the patently false accusation that B’Tselem tolerates, even supports Palestinian violence against Israelis. There is not much new in this laundry list of accusations, nor does the article contain revelations not already “exposed” by those Google warriors who trawl the internet for “damning” material against any critical Israeli voice.

But the practice of unearthing supposedly unflattering evidence to discredit dissent is half the picture. The other half is the conscious choice to obscure and hide information that contradict Mr. Pollak’s false thesis. How would readers respond to the fact that B’Tselem consistently denounces Palestinian suicide bombings and rocket attacks as war crimes? That it demands Hamas release unconditionally Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit? Or that it publicly criticized aspects of the Goldstone report? How can Pollak’s theory hold up to the fact that the Israeli Army’s Military Advocate General, Major General Avichai Mandelblit, went on record to say that “B’Tselem strives for the truth” and that the organization assisted the military in its investigations? Or to the fact that B’Tselem’s staff routinely meet with command and legal echelons of the military?

It is no coincidence that this article which is outraged at the fact that B’Tselem dares voice criticism is based almost purely on English language sources. Hebrew readers and speakers who experience Israeli society firsthand are exposed to extensive internal criticism of Israel’s settlement policy and treatment of the Palestinians. Our newspapers, radio shows, internet and blogosphere, even our most popular comedy show, Eretz Nehederet, regularly ily criticize aspects of our government’s policies. Many mainstream Israeli commentators who fear our growing isolation and our country’s plummeting international position point the blame not at whistleblowers such as B’Tselem, but rather at our collective greed for Palestinian land, which has led to half a million Israelis living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as prospects for a viable Palestinian state are trickling away.

The truth is, our society is much more diverse, and public argument and dissent far more common, than what any self-appointed Israeli government apologists would have the world think. The diversity and vitality of Israeli democracy and public debate should be celebrated rather than stifled. B’Tselem is certainly far from popular in our country – show me a truly self-critical human rights defender who wins popularity contests. But even at this polarized and extreme period in Israeli history we proudly boast a public council comprised of some of the most notable Israelis this country has produced. David Grossman, Amos Oz, Chava Alberstein, Gila Almagor, Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, Ruth Dayan, Alice Shalvi and Rabbi David Rosen, among many others, have publicly stood by us and pledged their support for B’Tselem and its work. B’Tselem is proud of its current and former board members, Jews and Arabs, both those maligned by Mr. Pollak for their opinions and public activism as well as those obscured by him, probably because their opinions don’t serve his “wolf in sheep’s clothing” thesis. With all of their support, B’Tselem will continue to be a proud and critical voice in Israeli society.

The writer is a press officer at B’Tselem. This response was originally published in Commentary.
http://972mag.com/btselem-response-to-attack-by-comment... /

More specifically to the Pollak OP you posted, this is a bombshell to you....why, I don't know. Even putting aside Commentary magazines
neoconservative view point, there is no scandal in the funding. They represent foreign interests? You think any government looks
forward to being held accountable? You don't make any sense nor does the argument. There are no other supportive sources in the OP about
his claims, which are based in paranoia imo.

Funding B'Tselem is independent and is funded by contributions from foundations in Europe, Israel and North America that support human rights activity, by private individuals in Israel and abroad, and by the governments of some EU countries and the European Commission.<44>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btselem

It's not really an Israeli grassroots human rights organization when it's funded like that, now is it?

Remember OCL in late 2008 and early 2009? Among other lies, B'tselem claimed the vast majority of Palestinian casualties were civilian...

:eyes:


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-btselem-witch-trials/

B'tselem was a heavy contributer to the Goldstone Report.

Judge Goldstone has since distanced himself from the main defamatory conclusion of the report.

Why would such a respectable human rights organization do the bidding of a genocidal antisemitic organization like Hamas?

:shrug:

Maybe because Hamas and B'tselem share a lot in common.

Here's Ann Biletzky, former chair of B'tselem:



Hamas and B'tselem. Common allies in the delegitimization campaign against Israel.

I don't expect you to agree. Not after our discussions WRT Norman Finkelstein and his support for Hezbollah terror vs. Israeli civilians.

People can judge for themselves, and if you continue as you do, what you're saying, basically,
is that there is no human rights group without an agenda. That Israel is never fairly dealt with,
there is always "something" behind it.

Your claim: Hamas and B'tselem. Common allies in the delegitimization campaign against Israel.

You find these statements credible, yet in another thread when I asked you if you believed their
documentation was inaccurate or made up you said you made no such implication. Here you are reversing
yourself, back and forth, back and forth..make up your mind.

As far as Goldstone, he did not make his recantation based on any concern he had regarding the human rights
groups.

Your statement: Why would such a respectable human rights organization do the bidding of a genocidal antisemitic organization like Hamas?

They haven't shira, and never have.


No such human rights group exists currently that examines Israeli policy fairly according to you, good luck with your quest for a credible argument.

That is without any question an example of antisemitism by ALL credible organizations dedicated to fighting Jew hatred.

It's also a fact that B'tselem went along with Hamas' false OCL casualty figures. They report Hamas' claims without any skepticism, having been proven wrong over and over again. I shouldn't have to remind you that Hamas has ZERO credibility and is in no way reliable. B'tselem leads useful idiots (many of whom are willfully blind) to believe that whatever is reported from officials in Gaza (Hamas) is credible and reliable.

that no human rights group exists that can fairly examine Israel.

At least not yet, lol.

Whether Libya or Syria is leading the council is irrelevant.

:eyes:

Lebanon (Hezbollah) leads the UNSC now. I doubt you see a problem with that one either.

The same Lebanon (Hezbollah) that has a "right" (that you recognize) to terrorize Israelis anytime it wishes, so long as it can claim it's doing so in self-defense against Israeli terror.

:eyes:

You've bought wholesale into the most extreme rightwing Jihadi theocratic propaganda.

I need to prove equating Israel to Nazis is antisemitic?

:shrug:

Or no proof B'tselem doesn't swallow Hamas claims in whole and report them as fact?

Either? Both?

SNIP* On April 18, NGO Monitor issued a “draft report on Human Rights Watch” which claims that an “objective quantitative analysis” shows that Human Rights Watch places an “extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel.” I have reviewed the draft document and checked its central claim against the actual documents Human Rights Watch has produced regarding Israel since the year 2000. The discrepancy between NGO Monitor’s claims and Human Rights Watch’s record is massive.

Human Rights Watch has in fact devoted more attention to each of five other nations in the region — Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran — than to Israel. I called this to Steinberg’s attention on May 3, and he responded that NGO Monitor would “examine and respond” to the discrepancies. Since then, I have received 27 emails from Steinberg; not one has in any way responded to this matter. Yet the draft report remains online, unamended.

On June 30, Israel’s Supreme Court issued a much-publicized ruling on the “separation fence.” The heart of the ruling was that “the route which the military commander established for the security fence… injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way, while violating their rights under humanitarian international law” and that the fence must therefore be relocated.

But if you were to read the NGO Monitor’s summary of the ruling, you would never know this. You would, instead, read all the court’s reasons for declaring that Israel has the right to build a fence to protect its citizens — and none of the language that explains the court’s view that the location of the fence is an unacceptable “infringement on the local inhabitants’ rights and interests.”

http://www.forward.com/articles/3517/

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/3517/#ixzz1ao81x9MY