Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jun 2010

Situation in the Middle East: Motions (Resumed)

We are continuing our discussion of yesterday on thesituation in the Middle East and the joint committee’s motions on the situation in Gaza and in particular Article 2 of the EU/Israel Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement 1995 concerning the parties’ human rights obligations.

We have apologies from Deputy Noel Treacy and Senators Paschal Donohoe, Terry Leyden, Phil Prendergast and Rónán Mullen.

We will proceed with section 5 which will run for approximately one hour. We are glad to welcome Ms Anne Herzberg, legal adviser to NGO Monitor.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, the witness is protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence she is to give to the committee. If she is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and she continues to so do, she is entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of her evidence. The witness is directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, she should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Ms Anne Herzberg to make her presentation, after which we will have time for questions and answers, which I hope Ms Herzberg will take in one tranche.

Ms Anne Herzberg

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the joint committee to make a presentation on this very important and complex issue and to discuss the findings of our more than eight years of NGO Monitor research on these issues.

For more than 60 years, the State of Israel has been subjected to violence, warfare, and a relentless campaign of terror attacks deliberately targeting civilians. Thousands have been murdered and injured in suicide bombings, mass shootings, stabbings, rocket attacks, car bombs, kidnappings, and hijackings. Today, these attacks are spearheaded by states, including Iran and Syria, and terror organisations, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the PFLP and even al-Qaeda. They not only outwardly reject the existence of a Jewish state within any border, but their ideology is marred by overt anti-semitism and calls for genocide of the Jewish people. Unfortunately, many so-called Palestinian moderates and supporters also refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and seek to reverse the November 1947 UN decision calling for two states, which was accepted by the Jewish nation, and rejected by the Arabs.

This "hard power" terror war is bolstered by a corresponding "soft power" political war — also known as the "weaponisation" of human rights — aimed at delegitimising and demonising the State of Israel. It is often led by civil society or non-governmental organisations, NGOs, that claim the mantle of universal human rights and humanitarian goals. Many powerful organisations have joined this effort; organisations the budgets and influence of which rival that of large multinational corporations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam. At the non-governmental organisation forum of the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, 1,500 NGOs issued a resolution singling out Israel as “a racist, apartheid state” and labelling “Israel’s brand of apartheid as a crime against humanity.” These NGOs accused Israel of the “systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing” and called upon the “international community to impose a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.” The strategy of transforming Israel into a pariah state is the latest incarnation of the campaign that produced the 1975 UN General Assembly declaration that “Zionism is racism.” Although this very bigoted declaration was repealed in 1991, NGOs resuscitated both the tactic and the canard at the Durban conference to delegitimise Jewish self-determination and self-defence rights. This singling out of Israel is a form of incitement and in itself appears to be an expression of racism.

NGOs claiming human rights and humanitarian objectives are the main engine of this "Durban strategy" by way of the following: promoting boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns; lawfare, where Israeli officials and corporations or states doing business with Israel are harassed around the world with lawsuits that exploit universal jurisdiction statutes; and lobbying and campaigning at international institutions such as the UN and the EU. Disturbingly, many of these efforts are funded via large grants provided by EU and European governments, including Ireland.

In their publications and campaigns, these NGOs adopt the rhetoric of human rights and international law. By couching political attacks in legal terms, NGOs seek to create a veneer of credibility and expertise, thereby increasing international pressure against Israel and delegitimising its right to defend its citizens from attack.

Since the 2001 Durban conference, this process has played itself out many times — Jenin in 2002, the ICJ case against Israel's security barrier in 2004, the 2006 Lebanon war, last year's Gaza war, and the IHH/ISM flotilla three weeks ago. It is always the same: Israel is faced with a spate of terror attacks targeting its civilians in major population centres; Israel responds with countermeasures of increasing severity; NGOs immediately issue countless condemnations, making accusations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and the intentional targeting of civilians based on speculation and little hard evidence. The media and the international community adopt these claims at face value, rarely performing independent verification. The UN, and in particular the Human Rights Council, engage in further one-sided condemnations, calling for international investigations and war crimes trials, and NGOs are called upon to play an integral role in these processes further entrenching their influence and claims.

Although the most recent manifestation of this process began after the full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the violent Hamas takeover in June 2007, it greatly intensified during last year's war, and has continued apace since the issuing of the Goldstone report and the flotilla violence of three weeks ago.

The Gaza war was accompanied by obsessive media and NGO coverage: NGO Monitor tracked more than 500 statements by 50 NGOs at that time. These NGO publications repeated several themes couched in international law that were eventually adopted by the Goldstone report including the alleged continued "occupation" of Gaza, "collective punishment," the supposed "intentional targeting of civilians," and claims of "disproportionate" force. These reports minimized the more than 8,000 mortar and rocket attacks of increasing severity and range directed at Israeli civilians living in Sderot, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Be'er Sheva and beyond. The role of Syria and Iran in their support of Hamas and other terror groups was similarly ignored, as were reports regarding the mass commandeering by Hamas of construction materials, fuel, and humanitarian aid. In contrast, little to no mention was made of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped from Israeli territory and held incommunicado for four years this week in complete violation of the Geneva Conventions and of human rights. In contrast to the condemnations of Israel, many international NGOs were silent on extensive human rights abuses occurring around the world during the same period such as the more than 600 civilians killed in Congo on 29 December 2008 in a conflict that has claimed more than 5 million lives, and the thousands of Muslims killed annually at the hands of other Muslims in attacks in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and elsewhere. Only a couple of days before the IHH flotilla confrontation, more than 120 Muslims were murdered and hundreds injured in a dual bombing and mass shooting at two mosques and a hospital in Pakistan. Yet, there were no emergency sessions at the UN Human Rights Council and comparatively little NGO and media coverage or ongoing focus.

Leading this disproportionate response in the Gaza war were Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and I will speak now in some detail about their publications on the Gaza war based on the results of our research.

Let me also say, before I continue, that there may indeed have been cases where the IDF may have fallen short of international legal standards. However, in its dozens of publications on the war alleging Israeli crimes, HRW and Amnesty performed little, if any, substantive factual or legal analysis. As noted by the committee appointed by the ICTY prosecutor to review alleged wrongdoing by NATO forces during the 1999 Kosovo campaign——

I regret having to interrupt the witness, but I must suspend the sitting for the vote in the Chamber.

Sitting suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 1.05 p.m.

I apologise for the interruption, which was beyond our control. I ask Ms Herzberg to proceed from where she left off.

Ms Anne Herzberg

As noted by the committee appointed by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia to review alleged wrongdoing by NATO forces during the 1999 Kosovo campaign, "Much of the material submitted to the office of the prosecutor consisted of reports that civilians had been killed, often inviting the conclusion to be drawn that crimes had therefore been committed". Similarly, HRW's and Amnesty's reports relating to Gaza simply highlighted a few highly emotive incidents from which these organisations drew overly broad and unfounded conclusions regarding Israel's compliance with international law. Moreover, both organisations minimised or even concealed that, during their missions to Gaza, they were continually shadowed by Hamas officials who vetted and debriefed witnesses prior to and following interviews. It should also be stressed that the methodological deficiencies in these publications are not unique to Israel. A 2006 study by the University of London, entitled The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia, found that:

Both organisations have substantive problems in their handling of quantitative information. Problems include the failure to specify sources, unclear definitions, an erratic reporting template and a distorted portrayal of conflict dynamics.

Human Rights Watch's concentration on the Arab-Israeli conflict reflects the political ideology of its officials, as well as the powerful influence of the media in setting NGO agendas. According to a study by James Ron and Howard Ramos, "Watchdogs respond to media demand, and the more journalists ask about a country such as Israel, the more Human Rights Watch... will respond". Similarly, a member of HRW's board has commented: "We seek the limelight — that's part of what we do. And so, Israel is sort of like low-hanging fruit."

In 2009, HRW issued nearly 100 publications on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the vast majority on Gaza, eclipsing virtually every other issue in the Middle East. HRW has issued only two reports on Iran since January 2009, compared to seven reports on the Gaza war alone. Its lone report on the Iranian post-election crisis is only 19 pages, compared to a total of 351 pages condemning Israel for the war.

HRW's charges relating to white phosphorus, drones, and white flag deaths drove a variety of NGO and media campaigns during the Gaza war and fed directly into the Goldstone report, following the model of the massacre claims about Jenin in 2002 and Qana in the 2006 Lebanon war. These reports were mostly premised on speculation or false claims, such as allegations that there was evidence that no Palestinian fighters were present in the immediate area of the attacks at the time, as well as charges that go beyond HRW's research capacity.

In its report, Rain of Fire, HRW charged Israel with illegal use of white phosphorus munitions. This allegation depended upon the military expertise of Marc Garlasco, HRW's former senior military analyst who resigned in February in the wake of scandal. His technical assertions were refuted by many military experts including in evidence provided to the Goldstone mission, even though that evidence was selectively reviewed by the mission in its report, and was supplemented with unverifiable and often inconsistent Palestinian testimony. HRW did not have knowledge of the military conditions involved and based claims of malevolent intent and war crimes on speculations regarding alternatives that may or may not have been available and equally effective.

Another report accused Israel of war crimes resulting from the alleged use of Spike missiles fired from drones. This report, too, was fundamentally flawed. A number of experts unconnected with HRW also immediately noted the major technical errors in the claims. Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, remarked that the launch of a missile from drones, two of which were alleged to occur at night, would likely elude the naked eye. He added: “Human Rights Watch makes a lot of claims and assumptions about weapons and drones, all of which is still fairly speculative.” Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, similarly questioned Garlasco’s claims that witnesses heard drones prior to the alleged attacks. Kemp noted that the five-mile range of a Spike missile was enough to put it well out of earshot.

The single HRW report on Palestinian violations of Israeli human rights, entitled Rockets from Gaza, was not published until 6 August 2009, long after media attention had subsided. The report covered no new ground and largely repeated an April 2009 publication of the International Crisis Group. Moreover, the content of the report equated Israel with Hamas, failed to condemn Hamas for the use of human shields, and blamed Israel for Hamas rocket fire from populated areas. Rockets from Gaza also ignored weapons smuggling into Gaza, as well as the role of Iran and Syria in supplying those weapons. In contrast to the condemnations HRW directed at Israel, its report on Hamas included no implications and appeared to be merely an attempt to create artificial balance.

Rockets from Gaza was followed one week later by White Flag Deaths, alleging that Israel deliberately killed civilians waving white flags. This report relied on conflicting Palestinian claims and ignored the major discrepancies in Arabic-language and international media regarding these charges. In one case, over 16 different versions appeared in the media. At a press conference held in Jerusalem, HRW admitted it was aware of these many versions, yet this information was missing in its report. Inconsistencies include whether Hamas fighters were present at the time of the incidents, the specific details of how the incidents transpired and the number, identity and affiliation of casualties.

HRW's reporting on Gaza was coupled with several notable scandals. In May 2009, HRW officials appeared at a fund-raising dinner in Saudi Arabia including at least one member of the governing Shura Council. At the dinner, HRW noted its need to combat "pro-Israel pressure groups" as the reason for seeking Saudi funding.

In September 2009, Marc Garlasco, HRW's "senior military analyst" responsible for authoring many of HRW's Israel reports since 2004, was revealed to be an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia, contributing more than 8,000 posts to Nazi memorabilia websites and authoring a 430-page collecting guide to Nazi-era war medals. Finally, in October, HRW's founder Robert Bernstein, wrote a devastating op-ed in the New York Times charging that HRW "has lost critical perspective" and "has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state." Recent exposés on HRW in The Sunday Times of London and the New Republic support these claims.

As with HRW, Gaza was the primary focus of Amnesty International's work in 2009. Israel is portrayed as the second worst human rights violator in the Middle East after Iran. Palestinian, Syrian, Libyan, Egyptian, and Saudi human rights violations received far less attention. In addition, Amnesty International issued more in-depth reports, which have the greatest impact, on Israel than on any other country.

In July 2009, Amnesty International published a report entitled Operation 'Cast Lead': 22 Days of Death and Destruction, charging Israel with "war crimes". The 127 page report ignored considerable evidence available to anyone with access to YouTube of Hamas operating deliberately within civilian areas to turn the population of Gaza into a mass human shield. It minimised Palestinian violations of international law, and promoted boycotts and lawfare against Israel. The only mention of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit was in a footnote, underlining Amnesty International's double standards in the application of human rights norms. A subsequent report published on the first anniversary of the Gaza war accused Israel of "collective punishment under international law", minimising the role of Egypt and Hamas.

The report also repeated a claim, which originated in its July 2009 report, that Israel "wantonly and deliberately" destroyed the al-Bader flour mill in Gaza. This incident was not contemporaneously reported by the Palestinian NGOs in Gaza, nor in the Arabic media. Photographs and a summary of events released by the UN and the IDF refute Amnesty International's and the Goldstone mission's version of events and clearly show that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery during a firefight with Hamas combatants and not by an F-16 strike as Amnesty International and Goldstone claimed.

How much time does the speaker have?

She is still within time. Speakers have 15 minutes or so. Yesterday we gave a little latitude on both sides.

Ms Anne Herzberg

Amnesty International has also seen its share of controversy in the past year. In February 2010, Amnesty suspended Gita Sahgal, head of its gender unit, for criticising Amnesty International's alliance with Moazzam Begg, an alleged supporter of the Taliban. Its actions were condemned by author Salman Rushdie and columnist Christopher Hitchens, among others. Hitchens called the "degeneration and politicisation" of Amnesty International "a moral crisis that has global implications." In response to the criticism, Amnesty International's interim secretary general, Claudio Cordone, defended Begg, stating that "jihad in self-defence" is not "antithetical to human rights". In a statement published in the New York Review of Books, Sahgal remarked that the organisation’s “stance has laid waste to every achievement on women’s equality by Amnesty International in recent years and made a mockery of the universality of rights.”

HRW, Amnesty International and other NGOs such as the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights were integral players in the Goldstone mission. Goldstone was a member of HRW's board until May 2009 and has an ongoing close personal relationship with HRW executive director Kenneth Roth. Prior to the war, mission member Christine Chinkin consulted for Amnesty International, and shortly after the war the other three members, Goldstone, Hina Jilani and Desmond Travers signed a letter prepared by Amnesty International claiming to be "shocked to the core" by the events in Gaza.

In May 2009, an Amnesty International official provided Goldstone with a proposed outline for the report, which was largely adopted. The organisation also appears to have given the mission a list of 36 incidents to investigate, all relating to alleged Israeli violations, which became the sole focus of Goldstone's report. These connections represent a major conflict of interest. Such close ties almost ensured that information provided by these NGOs could not be objectively evaluated. Despite personal assurances to me and others by the mission that NGO submissions would be made publicly available on the UN's website, they remain hidden.

In June and July, Goldstone held "public hearings" in Gaza and Geneva, where the mission cherry-picked witnesses in a process that was secret; some individuals even testified in secret to the commission. The mission largely failed to ask questions designed to elicit relevant facts pertaining to the charges at hand.

In one very troubling case, Mr. Travers, who testified before the committee yesterday, asked a pre-vetted witness from the Gaza Community Mental Health Project about the state of mind that supposedly motivates Israelis. In response, the NGO official replied, "With time the Israeli soldier has the image of absolute superiority... There we see the arrogance of power and he uses it without thinking of humanity at all... inside Israel there is an identification with the aggressor, the Nazis."

This exchange exemplifies that the Goldstone mission, conducted under the auspices of the thoroughly discredited UN Human Rights Council and in conjunction with these officials, was not about a search for the truth but rather was in service of further demonisation. After their participation with Goldstone, two of the mission members, Mr. Travers and Ms Jilani, were active participants in the so-called Russell tribunal, a fringe political event organised by far left-wing radicals designed to put Israel and countries supporting it on trial in a kangaroo court.

Systematic and widespread condemnation and criticism of the Goldstone process has come from across the political spectrum. Professor Francoise Hampson has noted that the key problems with Goldstone were the "biased HRC mandate", "the nature and confused conclusions reached" and Goldstone's faulty assumption that violations of humanitarian law can be based solely on result. Professor Yuval Shany, who is often critical of the Israeli military, has remarked that the Goldstone report "sets a standard that no one applies and no one can meet." Judge Fausto Pocar, former president of the ICTY, criticised the Goldstone report for its one-sided and discriminatory call for universal jurisdiction against Israel.

The British think-tank, Chatham House, also issued a report regarding irregularities in the Goldstone process and concluded that among other aspects, "the mission had given insufficient acknowledgement of the difficulty in obtaining information in a political environment dominated by Hamas; "that there was a perception of bias regarding mission members; that "the criteria employed [for selection of incidents to be investigated] should have been indicated; "and that criticisms of Hamas were "tentative".

The NGO reports discussed earlier, and the nature of the impartial relationship and stated prejudices of the Goldstone commission members, are in clear violation of fundamental ethical standards adopted in the London-Lund Guidelines on International Human Rights Fact Finding Visits, by the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association. The guidelines specify norms for the composition of such inquiries and appropriate methodologies, including "accuracy, objectivity, transparency and credibility."

It is most troubling that the motions for discussion today largely rely upon Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Goldstone report, repeating their one-sided assessments and political advocacy couched in the facade of morality, and ignoring the ethical and methodological deficiencies.

In issuing demands to end the "siege of Gaza", NGOs offer little analysis as to whether such a move will strengthen the hand of Hamas, a terror organisation that openly persecutes women, gays, Christians and apostates, bars free speech, advocates genocide, and seeks to impoverish and repress its own people in the service of its dysfunctional political ideology. Little thought is given to whether more moderate Palestinian forces will be weakened, thereby making peace based on a two-state solution and mutual acceptance far more difficult.

Regional impacts of Gaza policy are also ignored, such as the potential for increased influence of Iran and Syria. No solutions are offered as to how Israel can protect its citizens from attacks or how to prevent the smuggling of increasingly sophisticated and lethal arms which not only threaten the area surrounding Gaza but also Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. These are the difficult and complex questions that must be considered in both a practical and a moral framework.

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is one of the most complex political situations of our time. However, solutions cannot be found when problems are solely viewed through a narrow ideological lens and morality is exploited to promote bias. I hope my remarks here today have offered another perspective on these issues and raised critical questions that will inform the debate.

I join the Chairman in welcoming Ms Herzberg, a fellow lawyer. I compliment her on her well researched and thoughtful paper. It has a few general themes to which I will return but I first would like to set Ms Herzberg straight on something. Page 24 of Ms Herzberg's statement states:

It is most troubling that the motions for discussion today largely rely upon Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Goldstone report, repeating their one-sided assessments and political advocacy couched in the facade of morality, and ignoring the ethical and methodological deficiencies.

This is not true and I will explain why. I was one of the proposers of the original motion which was passed in January 2009. The Goldstone report was not published in 2009 to the best of my knowledge, I have never read anything from Human Rights Watch and I have nothing to do with Amnesty International. I assure Ms Herzberg as one of the co-sponsors of the motion that my primary interest is the European Union and not Israel. I have an interest in Israel, I once visited a little part of it — Masada — which was very interesting. My primary interest is the European Union and the standards it will uphold in its association agreements.

The European Union has association agreements with Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria and Libya and is negotiating with Syria. Yesterday, I stated that very few of those countries would get an Oscar for human rights enforcement. In one sense, it is a compliment to Israel that we are discussing this. We want the very best from Israel. We want a good Israel. We understand Israel is under threat and its history of conflict and suicide bombing and all of the problems that the people of Israel have. However, even in that situation, if Israel wants to be associated with the high standards of the EU — if they are high standards — then it must itself adhere to high standards. When it uses disproportionate military force it is not adhering to the highest standards. When it commits acts of piracy on the high seas it is not adhering to the highest standards. When it builds a wall condemned by the world court and brings daily misery to many communities it is not adhering to the highest standards.

That is my approach and it is not hypocritical because after this process I intend to shed the spotlight equally on other countries with whom we have association agreements. They should be subject to equal scrutiny. It was a valid point made yesterday and one which I acknowledge.

Do the various points made by Ms Herzberg amount to a thesis that there is a world conspiracy against Israel and that we are all out to get it? It is not true for my part. Are there international organisations of credibility to whose findings Ms Herzberg would adhere? The world court declared the wall to be illegal and that is a very reputable body. The Goldstone panel was made up of people of integrity, although the only member I have met is Colonel Travers. Yesterday, he informed us that Israel did not co-operate with the Goldstone report. I had not known that. Perhaps if Israel had co-operated, the Goldstone panel would have had a better chance of factoring Israel's point of view into its conclusions.

The motion is all about our standards. We will not use this in a threatening way, because I certainly would not be into threatening anybody under any circumstance. We want to raise the standard. We want to ensure the EU is monitoring human rights in all of the countries with which it has association agreements. We want to ensure that those countries comply to the highest of standards. There is no apology from me, or I suspect from my colleagues, for being interested in this. We have to be interested in this because the public will demand it and it is a term of the association agreements that the highest standards should be obtained. The word used in the agreement is "essential" and as Ms Herzberg is a lawyer she will understand this. If one tells someone selling one a car that it is essential it has four wheels and it turns out to have only one wheel there is a problem with the agreement. This is the background and I ask Ms Herzberg to bear it in mind in her response.

I welcome Ms Herzberg and thank her for her presentation. I will outline our main purpose for being here today. I proposed the second motion which is the basis of our discussions, and it is entirely focused on addressing whether Article 2 of the Israel-European Union Euro-Mediterranean association agreement was violated in the context of human rights and international law in the events that transpired during the incursion into Gaza from December to January. Human rights are, as Deputy Mulcahy stated, essential to that trade agreement. Both motions were tabled on 15 January 2009, when the events were still transpiring. The motion outlines all of the events leading up to it. On the day the motion was tabled, the Israeli army bombed UNRWA headquarters at the same time as Ban Ki-moon was engaged in peace negotiations with Israeli politicians. That was the last event that took place prior to our motions being tabled.

We would like to know how Ms Herzberg can be helpful to us and what are her views on whether the actions of Israel on that occasion were of such a nature that there were violations of human rights and that international law was breached. If it is her opinion that they were not, we would like to hear precisely why not rather than her very detailed and extensive analysis of other human rights organisations and the way they behave. Will Ms Herzberg also outline for us her organisation, its origins, how it is funded, what numbers are involved and whether its activities have focuses other than examining various human rights organisations which it feels are involved in what she described as the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Ms Herzberg is the first person to come to us and cast doubts on the integrity of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, Oxfam and Trócaire. These are organisations which we feel have acted all along in a fair, considerate and objective manner in their analysis of abuses of human rights abroad. Amnesty International publishes an annual report and Ireland always features in it. Every country in the world is covered in that report. They are involved in a broad range of areas. It appears to me that the NGO Monitor is, in terms of the manner in which it dismisses this organisation's findings in relation to Israel, committing the same offence it accuses other organisations of, namely, it accuses that organisation of selectivity while it too is extremely selective in terms of presenting the information in a manner which suggests there is a criminal intent among all these bodies to target Israel, take it out or undermine it in some fashion. Perhaps Ms Herzberg would respond to that point.

Many of us, as members of the committee, have visited Gaza since the events 18 months ago and have seen for ourselves the effects of the blockade and what happened during the war. We have seen the sites on which houses, hospitals and schools were demolished. It is not a figment of our imagination; we were there and saw all of this. Nobody has contested that 1,440 people on one side and 14 people on the other side died. It is undoubtedly the case that Gaza is currently unable to rebuild itself. These are facts we have all observed. We do not necessarily want to spend all our time discussing whether one organisation or another has been somewhat selective but are particularly concerned to know whether this activity by Israel was of such disproportionate nature in terms of the manner it was conducted by the Israeli army and authorities that it amounted to breaches of human rights thereby undermining the basis on which the trade agreement was posited.

While we spoke to Mr. John Ging and met the people of UNRWA and obtained their views on the situation, we did not meet anybody from Hamas, which is subject to sanctions. The European Union and Ireland is not engaged with Hamas. One might say the whole apparatus from Hamas's point of view is that everything is rigged against it. It was elected but is nevertheless not being dealt with by the global community in a fair fashion. We met the Israeli authorities but did not meet Hamas. As such we could be viewed as being imbalanced in terms of the manner in which we conducted our activities. Ms Herzberg's perspective on this issue is unusual. I would like if she could focus on the activities we in this committee are trying to resolve.

Reading through the prepared statement I note there is a finding of fault with too many major institutions. By this I mean that this is a one sided approach. The standards expected of an independent State like Israel, which is a democracy, and the standards that might be expected of a dictatorship in a theocracy are completely different. Two facts remain, namely, approximately 1,300 people died in Gaza during the recent war and, in international waters, people who were attacking with no more than deck chairs were shot down in an act of piracy. The State of Israel will have to face up to the fact that it cannot hold a collective guilt over the Palestinian people who live in the West Bank and Gaza. They cannot be treated in the manner they are being treated. There cannot be such a disparity of income that on one side of the wall there are people earning on average US$20,000 per annum while on the other side there are people earning US$1,800 per annum. This must change. I say this as a person who supports Israel, a person who believes there is a proper place for the Jewish people, which is Israel, their homeland in which they should be allowed to thrive and survive. It is important for all of us that this happens.

Fortunately we in Ireland do not have a collective guilt and can speak freely to both sides. Both sides are acting reprehensibly. However, to deny the truth and put a spin on matters does not help Israel's cause. As a democratic institution and State, Israel must improve its human rights actions and its treatment of people in Gaza and the West Bank. It is as simple as that. The policy of holding them collectively responsible must change so that those who support Israel can have some basis for going forward. There are many such people.

I thank Ms Herzberg for her contribution. She has offered us another perspective and has raised important questions. An issue arises in regard to whether NGOs are being selective in terms of the causes they raise or the plight of the peoples they highlight. When it comes to this issue, we need a balanced debate. This is not happening in Ireland at present and as a result everybody who participates in that debate suffers. This is an issue which needs to be examined. Ms Herzberg has given a particular point of view in regard to which we could invite the groups concerned to respond through the committee.

We tend to lose sight of the fact — I am sure everybody would agree with me on this — that there has been suffering on both sides, a point made by Ms Herzberg. This is about more than just Private Shalit or the recent rockets. There has been a history of suffering on both sides. This is a complex issue. There have been acts on both sides that should be condemned. As the Chairman has stated before it is often the case that we focus on the latest atrocity and most recent events. While it is important that acts are criticised and condemned we need to keep sight of the bigger picture in these situations, which is what we had to do in respect of Northern Ireland. While there has been talk in regard to whether one should compare the two conflicts when it comes to peace one must consider both perspectives and the bigger picture.

Ms Herzberg has made valid points in regard to the delegitimisation of Israel. There is a danger that those people who support Israel will get caught up in this agenda. This is not necessarily their fault but relates to the need for balanced debate and a more complex examination of the issue. I do not agree with many of the acts of Israel. I am on record in condemning them. However, one would not think this given some of the articles that have been written about me in the context of this issue. The use of the term "Zionism" in a derogatory manner is totally wrong and should not be accepted in the context of debate on this issue. The comparisons with Apartheid are wrong and should not be allowed or accepted. This is about two nations and two peoples and is a different case to that of South Africa.

We need a middle ground in this debate that recognises the complexity of what is involved and examines the historical context. The historical context is always in people's minds when they speak about this issue. I would prefer if people like me, members of the committee and others outside these Houses could criticise acts of Israel or Palestine and at the same time support Israel, which is difficult to do. People on both sides of the debate in Ireland are pigeon holed unfairly. I know that what the people who have a different perspective to me are saying is more complex and balanced than they are often given credit for.

People putting forward the Israeli point of view need to do it more in terms of presenting a much more complex picture of themselves. This is necessary in terms of the fight in regard to the delegitimisation of Israel, which is dangerous.

Israel must look at itself. When the Government of Israel or particular individuals make points or a particular case, they need to look at how it is presented. For example, I would like to know more about NGOs, particularly those in Israel, which walk a more middle ground, and how they are faring and what picture they present. It has always been said there is freedom of speech in Israel. That is my perception. Mr. Travers indicated yesterday that it might be otherwise. I need to read what he stated but if Ms Herzberg has comments on that, I would appreciate them.

We need to know more about what the courts in Israel do to uphold human rights. There is much good work done by Amnesty International and the other groups Ms Herzberg mentioned. Has her organisation raised these issues directly with groups such as Amnesty International and looked for their response because they may well want to take them on board? We should invite them here to the committee to talk about it. I admire much of the work that such groups do but there are dangers in terms of how they get caught up in a polarised debate and they need to be careful. That is an important point.

The public in Ireland was generally appalled when we saw the pictures coming out of Operation Cast Lead of children who had been killed in Gaza. That is much of where this comes from. Ms Herzberg made a good point that we do not focus on other areas of the world in the same way, but there are historical reasons for that. When one is faced with that type of picture it is difficult to look away and to not raise it. I oppose Operation Cast Lead, but at the same time I always try to put the other side because one needs that balanced debate.

Has Ms Herzberg any comment about the press coverage in Israel? For example, what was the press coverage of the Operation Cast Lead in Israel like compared to that here? We received many pictures of people who had been killed and a great deal of information about it in that sense.

Normally, we thank speakers who come in and make a contribution, but to be quite honest with Ms Herzberg, I found it difficult to even listen to her. I grew up in the 1960s and was familiar with the difficulties we experienced here on the island of Ireland and many of the Troubles in the northern part of the island. For a long time, I suppose, it looked a hopeless case despite the interest shown by a number of other countries and world leaders. While there is probably a number of factors that have contributed to bringing about peace on the island of Ireland, it could not but be said that there was a great emphasis placed on what people had in common rather than dwelling on the issues on which they differed.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, in his contribution here, outlined clearly the Government policy on this matter. He has taken a considerable personal interest in it and has a constructive role.

Ms Herzberg, in her opening words, stated that she appreciated the opportunity to present to the committee on this important and complex issue, and she went on for the next 20 or 25 minutes explaining in a black and white way her view of the situation. It is typical of the propaganda that we have had to listen to for many years. Having listened to Ms Herzberg here today, I despair.

There have been many atrocities committed over the years, some by the Israelis and many more against them. We do not deny that but Ms Herzberg's contribution here has really been an insult to the intelligence of the members of this committee.

The priority for any of us who have an interest in this problem should be to restore peace to the region and see how we can contribute to that end in whatever small way or with whatever role we have. I ask Ms Herzberg to reflect on what she stated. She got a good opportunity to come before us and she might ask herself in what way did her statement contribute to that goal of bringing about peace.

Ms Herzberg also placed considerable emphasis on the Goldstone report. She attempted here to tarnish the name of a well-respected former member of the Irish Defence Forces and I find those attempts despicable. I refer to a man who was before the committee yesterday and presented his case and his experiences. He has a well-earned reputation and Ms Herzberg's attempt to cast doubt on his integrity was repulsive. It is important that Ms Herzberg apologise to the committee. She was given an opportunity to come and make her case. In Kildare, people would say she has a hard neck. She got a good opportunity to come before a committee of the Parliament of Ireland, and to insult an honourable former member of the Defence Forces is very much to be regretted.

I have an additional question. There is legislation going through the Knesset in Israel which would criminalise Israeli non-governmental organisations and forbid them from contact with international bodies, including non-governmental organisations abroad. I would like Ms Herzberg to comment on that.

As we can see, there are no holds barred in this. Before Ms Herzberg replies, my comment is that she presented a strong rebuttal of everything that has been suggested in other areas. Some might say it was an assertive, even strident contribution as a lawyer. There are some lawyers in the room as well and we are accustomed to their modus operandi. As one who is not a lawyer but who has read a little about it, I would have thought that, as a counsel for the defence, Ms Herzberg threw the book at the evidence of the other side on the basis that it was all discredited. There can be two bases for that, one that you can win it in that way and the other that the case is hopeless and that such is the only way to go about it. I am not being frivolous. That is a well-known procedure.

I want to rebut one point. Historically, the members of this committee have been very favourably disposed to the State of Israel and all that it stands for. All of them, without exception, would have been keen students of Israeli history. All of them have visited the area at different times. We all understand that atrocities have not been committed on one side only.

The problem that arises, as Ms Herzberg can see from the response of the committee members, is that the rest of the free world expects a higher standard from Israel and it is not sufficient to treat who one sees as one's enemies in the same way perhaps that one has been treated. The members of this committee have in the past, without exception, condemned the suicide bombers and the atrocities carried out, and went into considerable detail, in particular, in the House, as to the circumstances surrounding them. The problem that still exists is that every provocation begs retaliation and whether it be in words, bullets or whatever, it continues. When we visited that region last year having visited 30 years ago previously, what struck me most was that nothing had changed at all. The attitude was still the same. In my political lifetime, the President of Egypt and the Prime Minister of Israel have at different times been assassinated for whatever reason, because of their efforts to bring about peace in the region, and we know about the reasons as well.

Given that all of that has taken place, we also had here before the committee in 2008, before the intrusion into Gaza, both the Israeli ambassador and head of mission from the Palestinian side. They sat in this room, side by side, for the first time in this country, as far as we are aware. They were quite convivial and helpful to each other. We know something about such matters because of our particular history and we saw it as thought-provoking and helpful. After the intervention in Gaza, however, the scene has changed and we are back to where we were.

We questioned the NGOs we met at great length, and we do not take anything for granted. We also questioned all the people who made presentations to us and we checked the authenticity of reports. We received information that there were violations of human rights on all sides, particularly to prisoners, and that they were continuing. It is not a question of all the issues arising on the one side. The question to be asked is: "Where do we go from here?" What can be done to be constructive, useful and helpful at this juncture, as opposed to reverting to the past in which things degenerate into a brawl which nobody will win?

I am sorry if Ms Herzberg felt the committee was biased. The committee is not biased.

Ms Anne Herzberg

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I did not think the committee was biased but I saw copies of the motions and Amnesty's and HRW's names were specifically referred to. That is why I focused my remarks on those organisations.

NGO Monitor is a research organisation based in Jerusalem. We have approximately ten employees. We were founded in the wake of the Durban conference by Professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University. In the wake of the conference he saw the impact of NGOs and was surprised to find there had not been a great deal of academic research on the topic. NGOs have been very involved in international law issues such as the climate change treaty and treaties to ban landmines and they played an integral role in the International Criminal Court. It is curious that there has not been any critical discourse on or study of such powerful international actors. Our focus is primarily on the Arab-Israeli conflict but we are interested in expanding into other areas. We are starting to look into conflicts in Africa, Sri Lanka and Colombia and into establishing guidelines on best practice for NGOs when they are engaged in fact-finding missions or reporting on conflict areas.

My remarks may be difficult for some people to listen to but I stand by my statement. These are issues that cannot be swept under the rug. A great deal of taxpayer money is involved and I passed around a sheet of paper to the committee showing further details in respect of Ireland. Trócaire, for example, gets close to €23 million per year from the Irish Government and, with such a large amount of taxpayer funds, it is critical that the activities in which it is engaged are analysed critically. Is what the organisation is doing contributing to peace? Are there more effective ways it can contribute to peace?

We question all those groups separately and continuously challenge the basis on which they operate. It would be unfair to suggest that any of the views of these groups went unchallenged. Since they use taxpayers' money, we have a separate process for dealing with such issues.

Ms Anne Herzberg

Deputy Tuffy asked about freedom of speech in Israel and the media coverage there. I cannot compare the Israeli to the Irish media because I am not very familiar with the latter but I lived in America for 36 years so can compare American and Israeli coverage. The press in Israel is much more critical and much more open than the US press. In the US, media coverage was hindered by having to talk about Iraq or Afghanistan. I was in America during part of the Lebanon war in 2006 and I was surprised at the difference in coverage. Thankfully, Israel has a very vibrant free press and free speech. In the Knesset there are no holds barred.

Deputy Costello brought up the issue of NGO legislation. One piece of legislation sought to criminalise contact with international organisations. It was a fringe proposal and it died within a few days of being raised. It is not currently being considered in the Knesset. Other legislation on government funding for NGOs is being worked on by a number of parties in Israel. It is similar to legislation adopted in America, Canada and other countries where NGOs now have to disclose government funding sources. It is the first step in getting greater transparency on funding for organisations and the eventual goal is greater transparency on the overall funding of NGOs.

The Chairman asked where we might go from here and how we could contribute to peace. It is very important we stop demonisation and resorting to simple narratives in which Palestinians are always the victims. This leaves them not accountable for their actions while Israel is always the evil-doer which is primarily responsible for what is happening. That needs to stop and coexistence programmes in which Israelis and Palestinians can come together need to be funded. Ending incitement on television and in textbooks is a critical issue as incitement is the key issue and needs to end. Money is better spent in such areas than in demonising one side.

Has Ms Herzberg spoken to the NGOs she mentioned? Has she raised her concerns with them and have they responded?

Ms Anne Herzberg

We always try to talk with the organisations we research. We try to send them a draft of our reports ahead of publication so that they can comment. Last year we authored a report on Trócaire. The organisation sent back a reply saying it was not happy with the report but it did not offer any specific example of where it thought we were wrong or how we had unfairly characterised it. There have been cases in which NGOs have refused to meet us. Most officials at Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International refuse to meet us but that is to their detriment. I came from a human rights background and did a great deal of pro bono work on behalf of refugees when I practised law in New York. Since I have come into this area of research, the activities I have witnessed in respect of the Arab-Israeli conflict have led me to ask whether information about other areas of conflict is similarly not accurate. Maybe other conflicts are also not being portrayed in a transparent and accurate way. If that is the case, it would do a disservice to human rights and human rights organisations.

I thank Ms Herzberg for coming before us. We had robust exchanges which is not unknown in this business.

I want to say one thing about John Ging who was in this country during Operation Cast Lead. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that he was extremely fair to both sides even under intense pressure and strongly rebut any suggestion to the contrary. This is just one instance that I know of and the committee members visited there last year.

I thank Ms Herzberg for her presentation. I had hoped for a softer and conciliatory presentation at this stage, particularly if one ever intends for the situation, to use the current expression, to move on. When the report is completed it will be laid before the Houses of Parliament here and we will ensure that she receives a copy.

The joint committee went into private session at 2 p.m. and adjourned at 2.15 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 June 2010.
Top