First written and appeared in Arab Center Washington DC

In October 2021, Israel’s Defense Ministry issued an order designating six prominent Palestinian civil society groups and NGOs as terrorist organizations. This designation caused an international outcry, especially because the groups are quite well-known and their work in the field of human rights is broadly respected. The US Department of State said at the time that it was surprised by the move and would request information from Israel regarding the allegations. Three of the affected groups are human rights organizations with stellar records of carefully documenting human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories. Al-Haq, of which this author was a cofounder, is the recipient of more than 40 international human rights prizes, and prides itself on its independence and meticulously careful documentation, as well as its willingness to address human rights violations by Israel, the Palestinian National Authority (PA), and Hamas. The remaining organizations are: Defense for Children Palestine (DCI-P), prisoners’ rights association Addameer, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, Bisan Center for Research and Development, and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees.

The limited international response that followed was so instantaneous and widespread that Israel felt the need to justify itself, particularly to European and American diplomats. Israel declared that it had evidence that the six organizations were affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). However, this accusation does not hold water, and the real reason for the designation was to prevent these organizations from obtaining funding for their work.

Consequences of the Designation

The designation of any organization as a terrorist organization comes with serious consequences. Membership in such a group carries a hefty prison sentence in Israel. Even mere contact with a terrorist organization is a substantial offense, as is providing material aid to one, and both offenses can lead to severe sanctions and prison sentences. In effect, European donors were being warned that Israel would consider funding these civil society organizations as tantamount to support for terrorism, and that said funding would carry consequences for both donors and the organizations themselves. Since all of these organizations have their main offices in Area A of the occupied West Bank—which is supposedly under PA jurisdiction—it was not likely that Israel would raid their offices, even though it had previously raided the offices of DCI-P and seized its files and computers several months before labeling it a terrorist organization.

European donors were being warned that Israel would consider funding these civil society organizations as tantamount to support for terrorism, and that said funding would carry consequences for both donors and the organizations themselves.

Many feel that the limited international outrage over this raid was precisely what emboldened Israel to designate these NGOs as terrorist organizations. It is also likely that field researchers and other employees of these six organizations who work in Area C of the West Bank—which is fully under Israel’s control—will now be subject to arrest or harassment, and that the confidential files that Israel keeps on these individuals—which it uses in administrative detentions and travel prohibitions—will now contain reference to the terrorist designation, which will “justify” subsequent Israeli administrative measures taken against them. It is also feared that Palestinian banks will be pressured to freeze the organizations’ accounts, or even transfer their contents to Israel. From the point of view of most of the Palestinian organizations involved, cutting off funding appears to have been the main goal of the designation, the prospect of which would in fact spell the potential death of most of these organizations since they rely heavily on external financial assistance.

Civil society organizations and NGOs that operate in the West Bank and Gaza are already in a precarious position, as nearly all political activity in the occupied territories is prohibited by Israeli military orders, including that of the Palestine Liberation Organization, of which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is the chair. But despite this situation, these organizations are typically allowed to operate openly, unless their activity involves armed operations. Meanwhile, the duality of authority in the West Bank further complicates matters. All six organizations work openly and legally in PA-administered Area A, but Israel has authority in Areas B and C, and exercises an overriding control throughout the West Bank when it comes to matters of security, which means that Israeli forces often invade Area A to carry out arrests and raids like the one it conducted on DCI-P’s offices.

Israeli Charges

Israel was forced to defend its designation by claiming that it had secret evidence that these organizations were affiliated with the PFLP, and that they were using funds supplied by the European Union to fund militant activities, rather than the human rights and charitable activities in which they actually engage. Israel also hinted that fraud was involved, suggesting that funds were being fraudulently diverted from humanitarian activities to support terrorism instead. This charge echoed the case of Mohammad El Halabi, the director of World Vision International in Gaza. El Halabi was arrested six years ago and charged with diverting millions of dollars in aid to Hamas. Separate audits by an international accounting firm and the Australian Government demonstrated that the charges were false, but El Halabi’s trial went forward regardless, taking an astonishing six years—during which time El Halabi remained in pre-trial detention—to reach a guilty verdict that was based on Israel’s alleged secret evidence and a forced confession.

Israel was forced to defend its designation by claiming that it had secret evidence that these organizations were affiliated with the PFLP, and that they were using funds supplied by the European Union to fund militant activities.

In the case of the six organizations accused by Israel in October 2021, the PA felt the need to enter the discussion. Because one of its main functions is to maintain an extensive anti-terrorism posture in its security coordination with Israel, it likely felt that Israel’s claim that terrorist organizations were operating within the authority’s jurisdiction was in essence an accusation that the PA was not doing its job. The PA therefore insisted that American and European security officials, and not just diplomats, be involved in assessing Israel’s alleged evidence. And indeed, Executive Director of Al-Haq Shawan Jabarin informed this author that for a while Ramallah saw an influx of high-level security officials from the US and the EU who had traveled to Israel and the West Bank specifically to evaluate Israel’s secret evidence of terrorist activities.

While the exact contents of Israel’s “secret” files have not been made public, if the past is any guide the files almost certainly provide little to no support for the Israeli government’s claims. European countries were previously pressured to stop funding the six organizations based on secret evidence, which the Europeans examined and found unconvincing. Nonetheless, several European states did suspend funding to some of the six organizations and conducted renewed investigations. However, the international outcry that followed the designation led to a considerable slowdown in Israel’s trend of declaring civil society organizations as terrorist groups. The campaign to reverse the October 2021 decision and the outrage over it having occurred in the first place seem to have slowed the Israelis’ efforts.

Despite Renewed Funding, A Cloudy Future

After many months, several European organizations publicly announced that they had found no merit in the materials Israel had provided them, and so resumed their funding of the six organizations that Israel had claimed were suspect. Norway recently became the latest country to renew its relations with these organizations, having announced that it will unfreeze all funds that were previously earmarked for them, bringing the number of European states and organizations that have rejected the Israelis’ claims to 10. However, Israeli laws governing “terrorist” activity still remain on the books, potentially opening up these and other Palestinian civil society organizations to similarly baseless accusations in the future.

On the legal front, lawyers representing the six organizations made a request under Israeli law to see the secret evidence on which the terrorist designation was based.

On the legal front, lawyers representing the six organizations made a request under Israeli law to see the secret evidence on which the terrorist designation was based. Although the groups are hesitant to allow Israeli courts the chance to decide whether or not they are terrorist organizations, many feel that it would be prudent to at least know what evidence the Israelis are using against them. In response to this attempted assertion of the organizations’ legal rights, Israel in recent weeks sent letters to lawyers representing the groups, reminding them that because their clients have been deemed by the State of Israel to be terrorist organizations, they are not allowed—except with special permission—to receive any legal fees from the organizations. If the lawyers did receive funds from the groups, they themselves would be subject to criminal prosecution, and could face sentences of up to seven years in prison. This tactic was quite bizarre considering that lawyers who have spent a lifetime representing defendants who belong to Hamas, Fatah, and the PFLP—all of which Israel has designated as terrorist groups—in both civil and military courts have never received such a warning. Neither this author nor the lawyers defending the six organizations have ever encountered this type of prohibition or warning in the course of their work representing defendants in cases brought by the Israeli government.

Also curious is the fact that the US State Department has not made any comment since it first asked Israel for additional materials regarding its claims against the six organizations. The Biden Administration is presumably still waiting for the evidence that Israel supposedly has, or is perhaps merely stalling for time to avoid jumping into the fray and potentially upsetting an ally with which it has long had a “special relationship.” But given that multiple European countries have now resumed their funding for these groups after having conducted independent audits and finding no evidence of malfeasance, it would behoove the United States to finally clarify its position on this matter. If the US wants to continue proclaiming itself a defender of human rights and the rule of law around the world, it must do so in all countries and in all cases, not just when it serves Israeli, or for that matter, US interests.

JONATHAN KUTTAB

Non-resident Fellow

@jkuttab

Jonathan Kuttab The Electronic Intifada 8 March 2022
I have found that speaking to diplomats is often a frustrating experience.

They may be very pleasant and even knowledgeable and sympathetic. But when engaged closely they will repeat the official line.

On Palestine, this line is often a repetition of empty platitudes about supporting the two-state solution and strengthening civil society, but doing little or nothing to oppose Israeli policies that clearly undermine even their own declared government positions.

On 17 February, I met Lisa Stadelbauer, the Canadian ambassador in Tel Aviv. Karen Rodman, executive director of Just Peace Advocates, joined us by video conference, as did Chris Hull, the ambassador’s political adviser.

The ambassador was quite attentive and a good listener, but stuck to the official line as I had foreseen would be the case, and was not readily open to shifting away from the positions favored by Israel. She repeated the position of Justin Trudeau’s government as supporting a two-state solution but also did not seem open to challenging Israel’s continued expansion of settlements which clearly undermines such a position.

When I presented copies of my recent book, Beyond the Two-State Solution, for her in English, Hebrew and Arabic, she told me that while Canada still supported the two-state solution, she realized it was not quite as feasible any more. She said she was surprised to be learning that more and more Palestinians seem to favor a one-state solution.

One thing that had changed since when she was in Israel in the mid-1990s, she said, is that the optimism is gone. I agreed.

Apartheid label upsetting

When I asked about Canada’s reaction to the recent Amnesty International report, she said that Canada’s stance is that the label of “apartheid” is unhelpful, shuts down conversation, and upsets people. She also indicated that apartheid is a legal charge, which should be made by courts.

I said, “Which court? The ICC?”

She nodded.

When I countered by saying that my understanding is Canada is against Palestinians going to the International Criminal Court, she affirmed this to be the case.

“Well, that is a contradiction,” I replied. “We cannot use the word apartheid, unless we go to court, but we cannot go to the court, either?”

Palestinian armed resistance is condemned, but when we take legal avenues or nonviolent tactics like boycotts, divestment and sanctions that too is alleged to be legal and economic terrorism.

She nodded and changed the subject. She is, I must say, a very good listener.

War against human rights

I asked her about the six Palestinian human rights organizations that Israel has declared to be “terrorist organizations.” This was the principal issue I hoped to discuss because I am very proud of the human rights work done by Al-Haq, one of the six designated organizations, which I cofounded in 1979.

She frankly stated that she was glad Canada is not one of the funders of any of the six because that would have made things more difficult and been a problem.

Stadelbauer said that the Canadian government asked for clarifications about this issue and that the country’s intelligence services are discussing the matter with Israeli intelligence officials. No decision has been reached as of yet by the Canadian government.

Then, she added, that when a trusted ally says an organization is a terrorist organization, we must pay attention.

“Exactly,” I said. Which is why you need to insist that any anti-terrorism cooperation with Israel is not used to target civil society organizations.

Israel uses “secret evidence” to justify its actions. That is why you cannot just take their word, but must insist on open facts.

If they have evidence, they should publicly present it before they “decapitate” an organization by labeling it terrorist and making its work impossible.

I referred at this point to the civil court case of Mohammad El Halabi, the former World Vision director for Gaza, for whom my office is the legal counsel. I indicated his case had just been delayed for the 23rd time by Israel’s high court.

“Secrecy” is used to camouflage how thin and unconvincing the evidence against him is.

I pointed out that if Al-Haq can be considered “terrorist” then no civil society can develop or be regarded as safely in place.

The ambassador stressed that Canada believes civil society should be protected and promoted. I said that the labeling of the six organizations is precisely the opportunity to demonstrate Canada means it.

Canada, as Israel’s friend, needs to tell Israelis that they value civil society and the work of organizations they are claiming are “terrorist organizations.” I said that even organizations practicing armed struggle should be encouraged to turn to civil and humanitarian work, rather than be prevented from carrying out such activities because their members in the past used armed struggle.

When I raised my concerns regarding the overreach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, the ambassador said Canada supported the definition, and indicated that the definition was a result of a long and thoughtful process by academics and other experts.

She then changed the subject when I raised specifics related to how it would label me as a Palestinian or those who support Palestinian human rights as anti-Semitic for criticism of Israel. Later, I met a diplomatic staff member from Canada’s representative office in the West Bank city of Ramallah, who also indicated the IHRA definition was law in Canada, even though I knew that was not the case.

The definition has merely been included in an anti-racism strategy.

Need for leadership

During my meeting with the ambassador, I stressed that until a political solution is reached, there is considerable leadership Canada could show to promote human rights, such as advocacy for lifting the siege of Gaza, and pushing for elections and democracy.

In regard to Gaza, Stadelbauer mentioned the problem of Hamas. Hamas, I said, must also be brought into the conversation, just as the Palestine Liberation Organization was previously.

She replied that Canada’s policy is not to talk to Hamas.

I also referenced the situation in Area C, which comprises more than 60 percent of the West Bank, including the largest blocs of Israeli settlements.

And Karen Rodman provided information related to challenges to the sale of Palestinian products in Canada. Here, the ambassador indicated she expected we would be in touch with her counterpart in Ramallah.

The ambassador asked me if I thought the current Israeli government was any better than the last one. I said “no,” except for the fact that it is bold and blatant about refusing to let Palestinians have a state, or even negotiate with them.

I also reminded her that Palestinians have not had elections for a long time, and that the present Palestinian Authority has serious problems with credibility and legitimacy among its own people.

Later, when I met Canadian diplomatic staff from Ramallah, there was acknowledgment that many Palestinians feel the two-state solution is no longer viable and this information is shared with superiors in Ottawa.

Our interlocutor from Ramallah stated that diplomatic staff meet often with several of the six designated organizations. She was unable, however, to be at the last session of El Halabi’s legal case, though she attends many trials and hopes to attend future sessions to show concern and solidarity with El Halabi.

All in all, I felt that the position of the Canadian government continues to be solidly pro-Israeli, but that the government and its representatives recognize that there are contradictions leading to Canada not contributing to peace or justice in the area.

At any rate, the ambassador in Tel Aviv and diplomatic staff from Ramallah got to hear my point of view and hopefully will be better prepared when it becomes clear that the status quo is no longer tenable.

Jonathan Kuttab cofounded Al-Haq and is an international human rights lawyer and activist.

About 40 years ago, Raja Shehadeh, Charles Shammas, and I created Al-Haq, the first Palestinian human rights organization. After our first publication, “The West Bank and the Rule of Law,” an Israeli ambassador contemptuously dismissed us as “a mouthpiece for the PLO” and for “making a mountain out of a molehill.” We argued back through the International Commission of Jurists, which was our sponsor, that we are totally independent and meticulous about our facts and documentation. We challenged him to prove his claims or to show that ANY of our publications contained any materially incorrect facts. He never replied.

In fact, we were viewed with some suspicion within the Palestinian community because we were strictly independent and spoke the language of human rights and international law, rather than political polemics. This was new for most Palestinians. We persisted, however, and other organizations followed in our footsteps. We managed to have a positive impact on Palestinian society as a serious human rights organizations. Al-Haq is now one of several world-renowned and respected human rights organizations. I am proud to say that over the years Al-Haq has meticulously maintained its high standards and, after the Oslo process, was courageous enough to apply the same standards of objectivity, independence, and defense of human rights not just to the Israeli occupation, but also to the behaviour of the Palestinian Authority, and also of Hamas.

I was therefore shocked, though not surprised, when Israel today declared Al-Haq, together with Addamir, Defence of Children International-Palestine, and three other human rights organizations to be “terrorist organizations.” This is a far cry from the polemical, false accusations thrown at us occasionally by Israeli propagandists like the NGO Monitor. It carries practical consequences, such as the seizure of assets, arrest of personnel, and the criminalization of anyone who donates to or cooperates with us in any way.

The fact that Israel is choosing now to attack all six human rights organizations is deeply troubling. It may mean that we are finally becoming effective and successful, that Israel realizes it has lost the public-relations war, and that the world now knows and acknowledges the reality that it is an apartheid state and a systematic violator of human rights and international law. The Defense minister may be afraid that the day is approaching when he and other politicians and army generals may face prosecution before the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and he decided to silence these organizations and cripple their activities.

Another explanation, I am afraid, is that Israel no longer cares about its reputation and no longer fears international public opinion, or any sanctions by the international community. The fact that it has been successful so far in avoiding accountability, and that just a few months ago it ransacked the offices of Defense for Children International in Ramallah with little or no push back emboldened it to do whatever it wants without fear of repercussions. Its assault on civil society can go on unchallenged!!

For this reason alone, it is imperative that we must act now. Our churches, first and foremost, but also our elected representatives must hear from us immediately. Israel must know that its actions are monitored, noted, and will lead to consequences. At the very least, it can no longer claim to be a democracy and be part of the Western world. It can join the likes of Saudi Arabia and North Korea if it chooses, but as long as it pretends to be a democracy and lays claim to billions in economic and military aid  from the United States and preferred trade treatment from the US and Europe, it must be made to abide by international standards, and at the very least, stop its attacks on human rights organizations.

]]> https://jonathankuttab.org/2021/12/15/statement-on-israels-labeling-of-top-palestinian-human-rights-agencies-as-terrorist-organizations/feed/ 0