Revealed: Amnesty’s own officials reject ‘apartheid’ smear

Conservative MP and former minister Theresa Villiers accused the NGO of “peddling lies” by using the “apatheid slur” to raise money.

Leading figures and politicians called for a Charity Commision probe into the NGO in the JC just weeks ago, amid the furious reaction to the report’s “vitriolic propaganda”. The fundraising campaign may now bolster their case.

The JC can also reveal:

• An Amnesty staff member attended a rally in Cambridge where protestors chanted the Hamas slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”;

• Another Amnesty staffer tweeted in support of “spokespeople for an apartheid regime” being “run off campus”, shortly after Israel’s Ambassador to the UK faced an angry mob at LSE;

• An Arab activist claimed that Amnesty objected to his being included on a discussion panel because he rejected the “apartheid” smear.

Critics fear the claims of human rights breaches are part of a concerted cynical bid to deligitimise Israel and force a case against it at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Human Rights Watch in the US made the apartheid claim last year, and it is feared a UN Human Rights Council report to be published next month may reach a similar conclusion.

Researchers at media monitor HonestReporting unearthed a number of messages from senior staff at Amnesty in Israel.

CEO of Amnesty International Israel Yariv Mohar wrote a Facebook post on “a few words about the ‘apartheid’ report from a personal perspective”. Saying he was “shocked and angry” when he first heard about the dossier’s conclusions, he added: “Even now I remain conflicted.”

He said: “The report’s conclusions are not fundamentally flawed,” but added: “I do not think that Israel is guilty of apartheid against the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and certainly not against Palestinian refugees.

“I oppose the call for sanctions and the imposition of an arms embargo on Israel, a country that is dealing with real and difficult security threats.”

Amnesty International Israel Resource Development Director, Tal Gur-Arye, said on Facebook: “Despite the extensive work done on this report, in my personal opinion, its conclusions are problematic, to say the least.

“While the report details a large number of human violations, its theoretical framework and methodology, and thus, its conclusions, appear – in my opinion – to be flawed.

“While there is undoubtfully an institutional system of discrimination against Palestinian citizens, the claim that this amounts to apartheid does not enjoy a strong foundation in international law, academia, and civil society, yet alone the same claim made about Palestinians residing in other countries.”

He added: “My section was not involved in drafting this report, nor in its conclusions and recommendations”.

And Amnesty Israel campaigner Moran Avital said on Facebook: “For me there is no doubt that the moniker ‘apartheid’ produces an adverse effect locally, and does not encourage the Israeli public to discuss what is happening in the territories.”

The revelations come just days after Amnesty Israel executive director Molly Malekar objected to the apartheid claim in an interview, calling the report a “punch in the gut”.

In Britain, legal figures have called upon the Charity Commission to take action over “apartheid Israel” fundraising material sent out by Amnesty.

A mailshot posted across Britain said: “Your help and determination is needed. Help Palestinians break free of the 21st century apartheid they’re living under.” Amnesty raises money in Britain as a charitable trust, meaning it receives tax benefits such as gift aid. Its funds must be used for charitable purposes and the “public benefit”.

UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI) chief executive Jonathan Turner said the report was “vitriolic propaganda”, and suggested it “does not appear to comply with the public benefit requirement that must be satisfied by charities under English law.”

The report was published by Amnesty International Ltd. But its conclusion that apartheid is practised within Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is being used to raise cash by the NGO’s charity arm, called Amnesty International UK.

Theresa Villiers MP told the JC: “Accusing Israel of apartheid is wholly unjustified. Using this slur in fundraising is shocking. Amnesty should withdraw their report and retract this baseless allegation. An organisation supported by charitable status, and tax breaks, should not be peddling these lies about the world’s only Jewish state.”

In a fundraising pamphlet, Amnesty set out its plan to bring Israel before the ICC for war crimes.

Kristyan Benedict, Campaigns Manager at Amnesty UK, wrote about “allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of apartheid by the Israeli state”.

He said: “You’ve helped to bring perpetrators of human rights abuses to justice before. Now you could help do it again – consigning apartheid to the history books where it belongs. Please sign the action card enclosed and send your donation today.”

One page claimed that Israel worked to ensure “Jewish Israeli domination” across the country.

Another said: “Apartheid is happening again. Let’s be on the right side of history.”

Online, Amnesty UK has set up a petition entitled “Israel: Abolish Apartheid – Not Palestinian Homes”.

It claims: “Across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Palestinians are treated as an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of their rights. This is apartheid.”

Mr Turner told the JC: “In my view, this is dog-whistle fund-raising, making money out of antisemitic prejudices. They are appealing to the racism of a section of the population in order to raise money.”

Amnesty said: “The report details how Israel has established a system of institutional discrimination, oppression and domination against the Palestinian people. Research and analysis was carried out according to strict methodology and legal standards.

“Amnesty engaged our colleagues in Israel from the initial planning phase and throughout the drafting. The report makes for difficult reading. Our conclusions may shock, but cannot be ignored or altered because they are disturbing. We hope they will instead prompt the intense debate which is necessary for change.”