Hotovely has met with the Dutch foreign minister, the Spanish deputy foreign minister, and the ambassadors of Sweden, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Switzerland.
According to Hotovely, the diplomats were presented with detailed documents collected by the Foreign Ministry and the NGO Monitor organization that prove the "problematic" funding. She emphasized that Israel sees support for organizations opposing its right to exist as crossing a red line.
Hotovely has instructed Israeli ambassadors in Europe to demand that ministries increase thier overview of funds given to such groups, warning that if her premptive diplomatic move fails, Israel will be forced to adopt legislation forbidding foreign countries from backing organizations with a clear anti-Israel bent.
According to Deputy Minister Hotovely, these are some of the European investments in such organizations in recent years:
The Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, managed by the Institute of Law at Birzeit University in the West Bank, which received $10.5 million from the governments of Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The funds were to go to 24 political organizations over three years.
In 2014, the governments of Germany, Sweden, Norway, and the EU provided NIS 415,741 to the Coalition of Women for Peace, an organization that supports aspects of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.
The Netherlands provided NIS 13 million in the last three years to numerous NGOs, including Who Profits, Al-Haq, the Coalition of Women for Peace, and Al-Mezan.
Denmark provided NIS 23 million in the last three years to several NGOs, including Breaking the Silence, BADIL, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and other Palestinian organizations.
Switzerland provided NIS 5 million over the last three years to organizations like the Alternative Information Center, Zochrot, the Applied Research Institute, and Terrestrial Jerusalem.
Spain gave NIS 3.8 million in the last three years to groups including Breaking the Silence, the Coalition of Women for Peace, the Alternative Information Center, and NOVA, a Spanish BDS organization.
The United Kingdom provided NIS 12 million in 2008-2011 to Breaking the Silence, Yesh Din, Gisha, Bimkom, Terrestrial Jerusalem, and No Legal Frontiers.
Some remarks by Abu Pessoptimist:
1) This is a serious development. All of the organisations Hotovely mentioned are engaged in human rights activities and/or monitor the activities of the Israeli army and the settlements against the occupied Palestinian population. But human rights is, as we know (Gaza!), something that the present Israeli leadership is not in the least interested in,
2) None of the organisations opposes, as H. claims, Israel's right to exist.
3) Some of these organisations are, as far as I know, in favour of a partial boycott, namely a boycot of institutions that support or profit from the occupation. Only a handful (the Alternative Information Cenre, The Coalition of Women for Peace, NOVA) support BDS. (which by the way, is a perfectly legal and non-violent means of action against occupation and suppression andd has been used all over the world).
4) H. announced that she might prepare a law forbidding the EU-governments or organisations to support the above mentioned organisations if the subsidies don't stop. That too is serious. Banning criticism and human rights activities is a trademark of fascist and totalitarian regimes. Israel is on its way towards the first of these two categories.
5) NGO-Monitor, the agency that supplied H. with her information, is an ultra-rightist organisation with strong ties with the government (its director Gerald Steinberg was, or still is, on the list of people employed by the Office of Prime Minister Netanyahu). It is among the number one organisations that work hard to minimize the freedom of speech in Israel.
The right of Israel to exist is not recognized by most of these "free" speech groups.
The same applies for BDS fanatics. By the way, what is the legal ground for a BDS ?
Machiel de Winter,
I challenge you to prove (by giving a quotation or a link) that one - just one - of these groups does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
The legality of BDS is based on the right of every person to refuse to buy whatever products or services he doesn't want for whatever reason he or she deems fit. It is comparable to the generally recognized right to strike by workers who are not satisfied with their working conditons. It was used against the Apartheid in South-Africa (in the end also by governments). It is n internationally accepted way to solve conflicts like the recent one about the nuclear capabality of Iran. And it is similar to - for instance - boycotts by the general public of undesirable products like meat from the bio-industry, or certain kinds of tropical wood.
1. Al Haq.
2.you mix up consumer preferences with a policy.
3. Apartheids charges against Israel is no more than a figleaf bla bla not to having to recognize the right of the Jewish people on Israel. Therefore the legal ground to a BDS is based on rather murky grounds.
The comparison with Iran is completely false as well because unlike Iran Israel' s stance is not to wipe out a nation from the world, an act og agression forbidden by the Genocide Convention.
Machiel de Winter,
1) you're wrong, al-Haq nowhere says such a thing.
2) you're wrong, consumer ''preferences'' are one aspect of BDS policy.
3) you're wrong. BDS is not about apartheids charges or whatever charges, it is a struggle for equal rights. The group Al-Haq which you - in the footsteps of Likoed the Netherlands - single out for your unfounded accusations, delivered a paper describing the legal obligations states have to act against Israels unlawful settlement policy: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/new-al-haq-report-says-governments-within-their-rights-sanction-israel-over
(and as far as your last point is concerned: Iran is staunchly anti-zionist and some feared it wa fabricating a nuclear bomb, no doubt about that, but that it aims to wipe out Israel is - again - a Likud myth. One could argue, at the other hand, and with ample proof, that the one state that during the last 68 years has been trying hard to wipe out anothter nation is Israel).
I am not a member of Likud.
For the rest, dream along.
The paper of Al Haq was written under the aegis of the intellectual terroristic anti-semitism of Nollkaemper and partner Liesbeth Zegveld.
Today is TishabeAw. You as well are causing a churban.
Machiel de Winter,
I note that international law should condone all that Israel does, otherwise according to you it is antisemitic. I also note that you don't deliver one iota of proof for whatever you claim. I'd say: fast, tear your clothes, put ashes on your head and lament. Maybe not so much for the loss of the Temple, as for you own lack of intellectual capabilities.
One of the current Baal Tsafon's is the adoration of International Law whereas most scholars are are rather ambiguous whether it exists at all.
I know what I am talking about as I wrote a paper on it during the masters curriculum Int.Law at the University of Amsterdam for which I passed with 8.5.
True to say, TishabeAw is a day of introspection and tochachah. May I advise you to take heed of Pirke Avot I:7.
@ Abu op 26 juli 2015 12:20
Machiel de Winter,
Dat zal best van die 8,5. Als u uw ware naam opgeeft en uw emailadres erbij zie ik u graag terug. Zoniet: lehitraot, of voor niet ingewijden: tot ziens.
Een reactie posten