The Dilemma of the Israeli Human Rights NGOs,

Misunderstandings often reveal more about a society than premeditated public statements. A good example was a Jerusalem Post headline last week that inadvertently cast a spotlight on the profound dilemmas that face Israeli human-rights NGOs.

AJC has warm ties with Israel’s watchdog civil-society groups. We are in regular touch with organizations like B’tselem and the Israel Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Rabbi David Rosen, our International Director of Interreligious Affairs, was a founder of Rabbis for Human Rights, which is devoted to the principle that Jewish ethics are fundamentally related to humanitarian law, and until recently, I served on its board.

The Post headline was attached to an interview with Jessica Montell, director of B’tselem and an esteemed professional colleague who regularly briefs AJC groups and with whom I often share a panel.

Perhaps eager to turn an interesting story into an eye-catching front-page scoop, a night editor wrote the headline: “B’tselem: Goldstone Report wrong in its fundamental accusations against Israel.” This did not accurately reflect the content of the article, and B’tselem appropriately complained. (Full disclosure: the news article, but not the headline, was written by my son, Post diplomacy and Jewish world reporter Haviv Rettig Gur.) Responding to the complaint, the Post changed the online headline to read: “B’tselem: Israel at fault for not probing self.”

The Post then offered Montell an opportunity to contribute an op-ed stating B’tselem’s position, and it more or less restated the content of the interview. Both, and the confusion over the headline, give us a glimpse into the troubled world of Israeli human-rights NGOs.

Their problem is formidable: how are Israeli activists to fill their crucial role as watchdogs of human rights in Israel when the international institutions in which they invest great hope—and which quote them extensively—behave so unfairly? When the UN Human Rights Council chastises Israel more than all other nations combined, and at the same time congratulates the Sri Lankan government’s bloody campaign against the Tamils, the Israeli human-rights groups face a challenge of legitimacy. They having to convince Israelis that a “human rights” agenda is more than just another political bludgeon directed against Israel.

Many of the problems with the Goldstone Report are evident: a biased mandate (even Goldstone acknowledges it did not include “Israel’s right of self-defense”); flawed decisions on appointing commissioners, such as Prof. Christine Chinkin, who notoriously accused Israel of war crimesbefore she joined the panel; shallow examination of witnesses; overstated conclusions poorly anchored in fact; and more.

In her op-ed, Montell noted some deal-breaker flaws in the report: She wrote, “I was disturbed by the framing of Israel’s military operation as part of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience. The facts presented in the report itself would not seem to support such a far-reaching conclusion. In light of the sweeping conclusions regarding Israel, the very careful phrasing regarding Hamas abuses is particularly conspicuous. The mission did not find conclusive evidence regarding Hamas’s use of mosques and civilian buildings for military purposes, nor does it criticize Hamas’s firing from and shielding themselves within civilian areas.” It is important to notice that these two points on which Montell disagreed with the report were fundamental moral questions crucial to the report’s conclusions—Israel’s alleged targeting of Gaza civilians, and Hamas getting a virtual free pass for using those civilians as a battlefield-force multiplier. 

What tripped up the night editor at the Jerusalem Post is that despite her criticisms of the Goldstone Report, Montell’s primary intention in the interview was to suggest that “Israel has only itself to blame” for bringing international opprobrium on its head, by failing to conduct a proper investigation of allegations of misconduct during Operation Cast Lead. She wants a “credible, independent investigation” by Israel of what she describes as “hundreds of allegations of military misconduct.” Whether one agrees or not, the argument is reasonable. 

Yet in the course of promoting such an internal Israeli investigation, the op-ed says that “B’Tselem views the Goldstone report as the result of serious professional research that is genuinely concerned with promoting justice.” This endorsement simply cannot coexist logically with Montell’s critique of the report—that central conclusions questioning the morality of the Israeli operation are not supported by the facts. Ordinarily, this should call into question either the motivations of the investigators or their professional capabilities. Instead, she endorses both.

Montell’s confusion reflects broader consternation in the Israeli activist community with the seemingly limitless capacity of the anti-Israel agenda to usurp international discussion of human rights. Israeli human-rights NGOs, with their differing agendas and varying professional foci, all have this burden thrust upon them. 

More is at stake than just their moral credibility within Israel. Fate and the anti-Israel obsession of too many serial human-rights abusers in the international community have propelled the Israeli human-rights NGOs into the frontline of the battle between international political hypocrisy and authentic human-rights concerns. Will the Israeli NGOs show the same maturity and courage in confronting the flaws of the Goldstone Report and the international system that produced it that they admirably bring to bear in pointing out Israeli flaws? Just as they have aroused public awareness within Israeli society, they could do much to help heal the dysfunctions in the current international system of human-rights protection. Will they rise to the challenge?

first published at http://bit.ly/1lX8Iwd