Click here to read NGO Monitor’s review of the 2004 State Department Report

The following correspondence between NGO Monitor and the US State Department took place regarding the publication of the State Department’s "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices," and in particular the section on "Israel and the Occupied Territories."

Click here to read the State Department’s response

NGO Monitor
www.ngo-monitor.org

21 December 2005

Dr. Paula Dobriansky
Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
U.S. Department of State

Dear Dr. Dobriansky,

As the editor of NGO Monitor, I am writing to you regarding the use of claims by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the State Department’s "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices," and in particular for the section on "Israel and the Occupied Territories."

Given the impact of this report, it is important that it is credible, accurate and impartial. In this regard, reliance on NGOs as sources of information and analysis regarding human rights practices in the context of conflicts involving terrorism and warfare is highly problematic.

Previous years’ reports have included extensive quotes from NGOs that display a consistent anti-Israel political bias (in sharp contrast with the norms of universal human rights), publish claims that lack credibility, and ignore the complexities of human rights requirements in the context of mass terror. These highly politicized NGOs include the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (UPMRC), the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), B’tselem, Adalah, Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Many are active participants in incitement and the "Durban" strategy of demonizing Israel through false allegations of human rights abuses and selective citations of international law.

Detailed NGO Monitor reports have shown that these NGOs consistently promote this political agenda at the expense of accurate analysis. In contrast to the text of the 2004 report on "Israel and the Occupied Territories," many of these groups cannot be considered to be "reputable international organizations" and "credible NGOs." And citing their publications as fact leads to serious inaccuracies, while simultaneously giving credence to their often distorted reports and political "campaigns", including efforts to impose academic boycotts, and divestment.

Thus, the reports by "human rights groups" regarding the "alleged abuse of preventative or administrative detention orders," and their claims "that Israeli closures impeded and, at times, completely prevented their work" must be examined in detail. NGO Monitor‘s analyses shows that these NGOs and their claims, as cited in the 2004 report, lack credibility and reflect a strongly biased political agenda that exploits universal human rights norms in an unacceptable manner.

The absence of credibility

Most of the NGOs cited in the 2004 report do not have an independent research capability, are unable or unwilling to document allegations for verification, accept and rely heavily on politically motivated claims and anecdotal information, and selectively discriminate between sources based not on credibility but on political agendas.

As the former head of Amnesty International’s branch in Israel has revealed, this NGO does not have the independent research capacity to support numerous claims of human rights violations. (Michael Ehrlich, "Amnesty International do your homework" The Jerusalem Post, June 2, 2005) Similarly, Alan Dershowitz sought to verify allegations in Amnesty’s reports: "On Aug. 23, 2005, I spoke with Donatella Rovera, who is AI’s researcher on Israel and the Occupied Territories and asked her to provide the data on which she had based her conclusion that violence against women had escalated to an ‘unprecedented level’ during the occupation, and especially during its most militarized phase. Rovera confirmed that the report was based on anecdotal information, primarily from Palestinian NGOs. ‘We talk to anyone who would talk to us,’ she said. When I asked her for a list of the NGO’s that were the sources of the information, she refused to provide them because ‘there are things we can simply not provide to outsiders.’ It is impossible under these circumstances for any outside researcher to replicate AI’s study and to confirm or disconfirm its conclusions." (Alan M. Dershowitz, "Scapegoat to the World," National Post, September 17, 2005)

The lack of credibility for NGO claims is also visible in the reports issued by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and B’tselem, including those quoted directly in the State Department’s 2004 country report on "Israel and the Occupied Territories". B’tselem’s claims regarding Palestinian casualties and other issues related to the conflict, as cited in this report, cannot be verified independently, and are generally based on Palestinian sources. Similarly, HRW’s report "Razing Rafah," is the source for the claim that "the IDF actions destroyed over 50 percent of Rafah’s roads and elements of its water, sewage, and electrical systems." As the text of the report itself clearly shows, these allegations are based on a combination of Palestinian "eye-witnesses" and sympathetic journalists, and they lack credibility. In assessing the HRW report, a senior IDF officer (Brigadier General Michael Herzog) has noted: "When reporting on dead Palestinians throughout the Rafah report, HRW provides statistics showing that in each individual confrontation Israelis killed more civilians than armed people. How exactly do they know? In fact, Israeli statistics in all of these cases show quite the opposite. So how did they choose between the conflicting versions? Also, how exactly did they count houses in Rafah- how exactly did they distinguish between inhabited and uninhabited houses/tin huts/shacks? I recall, for example, that on the eve of the Israeli military incursion into Rafah in May 2004 when it was clear to the local population that the Israelis were coming, we noticed that some of them were taking off the roofs of their homes (mostly huts). Our information indicated that this was done so as to be able to claim that their homes were damaged by the Israelis and demand compensation from international relief bodies (such as UNRWA)."

In addition, HRW’s criticism of IDF efforts to detect tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to smuggle weapons into Rafah, cites unqualified "experts", including a low level sales clerk. In contrast to HRW’s claim to have relied on military experts, the emphasis on this report is political, including the claim that "Rafah residents believe that the IDF’s tunnel-hunting missions, which account for most of the 1,600 homes destroyed in the camp, are a pretext to punish Rafah as a whole and undermine support for the resistance". (p. 36) This is a biased and blatant political statement, and contradicts HRW’s claim to reflect a professional impartial assessment.

These examples are only a few of the numerous cases in which NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict zone publish distorted and misleading allegations. Repetition of these claims without independent verification further distorts the record, and undermines the credibility of the State Department’s country report.

Political Biases and the Removal of the Context of Terrorism

The impact of low credibility and the absence of independent research among NGOs is compounded by the overt bias in their agendas and priorities, which is counter to the core principle of universality in human rights. For example, the claims of many NGOs cited in the State Department’s 2004 country report on "Israel and the Occupied Territories" consistently strip the context of Palestinian terrorism and the obligation of the Israeli government to provide security to its citizens. NGO Monitor’s detailed examination of the reports issued by HRW on the Middle East during the period between 2000 and 2004 clearly demonstrate the disproportionate emphasis on condemnation of Israel for responses to terrorism. These political NGOs consistently under report or simply ignore the basic abuses of Israeli human rights.

Commenting on HRW’s reports, Brigadier General Michael Herzog notes "I have not noticed HRW refer to the terrible phenomenon of Palestinians in Gaza and Rafah, holding on to body organs of Israeli soldiers in order to barter with them, refusing to return them, and even displaying them in public. In one case, we were horrified to watch a picture of Palestinians play soccer with the head of an Israeli soldier. Where is all of this in HRW reports?" Thus, reliance on NGOs with strong political agendas for information and analysis automatically repeats their political bias and selective agendas, while removing the vital context of responses to terror.

The frequent references and quotes from an organization known as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) provides a case in point. In the report for 2004, PHR-I is cited in reference to its petitions to the Israeli courts regarding allegations of "systematic abuse of prisoners," its claims to have been "denied access to Gaza for 3 years," and in other areas.

However, as NGO Monitor’s detailed analysis of this NGO have demonstrated, PHR-I is primarily a political organization that opposes Israeli government policies, and uses the language of human rights to pursue this objective. As a result, the Israeli Medical Association has ended cooperation with this organization. (PHR-I is an independent NGO, and not a branch of the U.S.-based Physicians for Human Rights.) By repeating the claims of PHR-I without independent assessment, the U.S. State Department is providing credence to the unverified claims, and indirectly endorsing this political agenda.

Similarly, the report for 2004 repeats numerous allegations provided by pro-Palestinian political activists such as CPT and Adalah. These pro-Palestinian political organizations consistently strip away the context of Palestinian violence, terror, and the background of the conflict from their reports. The credibility of claims such as "security forces assaulted residents of Beineh in their homes and caused widespread property damage during the demolitions," is therefore highly questionable. In the context of a terror campaign in which over 1000 Israelis have been murdered in bus bombings, café attacks, and numerous other assaults, the legitimacy of counter-terror actions cannot be assessed in a vacuum.

The State Department is clearly aware of the problems involved in relying on NGOs for evidence of human rights violations, as the 2004 report mentions that "Public criticism [of the PA] from [NGOs] has been somewhat less forthcoming since the outbreak of the Intifada, with several NGOs voluntarily deciding to defer criticism of the PA’s human rights performance. Observers noted that documentation of abuses was very limited."

This being the case, we strongly urge the State Department to refrain from repeating unverified allegations of politicized NGOs in the 2005 report.

Sincerely,

Professor Gerald Steinberg

Editor NGO Monitor
Tel Hai 13
Jerusalem, Israel
Steinberg@ngo-monitor.org">Steinberg@ngo-monitor.orgwww.ngo-monitor.org

cc: Nadia Tongour
Editor in Chief
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: LeRoy G. Potts
Deputy Editor in Chief
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: Gretchen Birkle
Senior Advisor
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: Cortney Dell
Senior Editor
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: Dan Dolan
Senior Editor
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: Stephen Eisenbraun
Senior Editor
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: Leonel Miranda
Senior Editor
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: Jennifer M. Pekkinen
Senior Editor
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

cc: Stan Ifshin
Senior Editor
Country Reports Team
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

Below is The State Department’s Response:

United States Department of State
Under Secretary of State
for Democracy and Global Affairs

Washington, D.C. 20520-7250

January 17,2006

Professor Gerald Steinberg
Editor NGO Monitor
TelHai 13
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Mr. Steinberg,

Thank you for your letter of December 21, 2005, concerning the information used in the State Department’s annual "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." The State Department draws upon a number of sources in writing this report, including U.S. government employees who live and travel abroad, as well as a variety of nongovernmental organizations. The Department weighs the information from all sources carefully as it strives to provide the most accurate and complete report possible about human rights abuses and infringements of fundamental freedoms.

We are in the process of reviewing data from 2005. Consequently, your concerns and insights are timely. I have brought your letter to the attention of Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Barry Lowenkron, for his use in finalizing the current report.

Sincerely,

Paula J. Dobriansky

cc: Barry Lowenkron,
Assistant Secretary of State
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor