B’Tselem – Less Reliability and Credibility, More Politics
Amb. Alan Baker Jerusalem Issues Brief Vol. 15, No. 23 July 28, 2015

B’Tselem’s reliance for its funding and sources of information on partisan
political organizations places the organization’s credibility and reputation
in question.

In the charged atmosphere of the Middle East in general, and the
Israeli-Palestinian relationship in particular, the coverage and monitoring
of humanitarian issues in a reliable and honest manner is perhaps the most
important yard-stick for the credibility and reputation of any
self-respecting humanitarian organization.

Whatever the subject-matter, whether it is human rights in the territories
administered by Israel, human rights within Israel, or human rights in the
territories controlled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip or by the Palestinian
Authority in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria, the credibility of any
monitoring mechanism or watch-dog group must be based on accuracy, honesty,
reliability and impartiality.

As difficult as it may well be to apply such values in situations of active
armed conflict and daily political and social tensions, where emotions may
sometimes override or influence accuracy and reliability, genuine
credibility cannot and should not be driven by or be based on a
politically-inspired agenda.

Similarly, and by the same logic, any genuine and reliable human rights
organization financed by politically driven sources, places its operational
independence and the credibility of its reporting in question.

This is particularly relevant with respect to the functioning of B’Tselem,
which defines itself as "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in
the Occupied Territories.”1

On its website, B’Tselem prides itself on having earned "an international
reputation as the leading source of reliable information on human rights in
the Occupied Territories,” and whose "… reports have gained B’Tselem a
reputation for accuracy.” B’Tselem states that it "ensures the reliability
of information it publishes by conducting its own fieldwork and research,
the results of which are thoroughly cross-checked with relevant documents,
official government sources and information from other sources.”

B’Tselem declares that it is funded "by contributions from foundations in
Europe and North America that support human rights activity worldwide, and
by private individuals in Israel and abroad.”2

Clearly, any genuine and substantive monitoring of the actions by Israeli
governmental authorities would be perfectly legitimate and even necessary,
in the circumstances, assuming this is carried out in a bona fide and
impartial manner, based on objective international criteria and accepted
norms and applied to the actions of all states.

However, the reliance by B’Tselem both for its funding and for its sources
of information on clearly partisan political organizations and groups driven
by a blatantly political anti-Israel agenda, places in question its
credibility and international reputation.

B’Tselem’s flawed reporting is relied-upon by Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
(BDS) organizations for their anti-Israel campaigns.


In one of B’Tzelem’s recent publications entitled "Israel in the West Bank:
47 Years of Temporary Occupation,”3 this mélange of flawed factual and legal
analysis, as well as partisan political prognostications and criticism, are
particularly evident, undermining any purported claim to reliability by B’Tselem.

B’Tselem acknowledges on the one hand that the term "occupation” is a legal
term describing the status of a territory seized in armed conflict and not
being part of the occupier’s own sovereign territory, pending diplomatic
agreement determining the status of the territory. However, on the other
hand, B’Tselem goes on to make unsubstantiated and reckless political
value-judgments that Israel "apparently considers the West Bank, and
particularly Area C, as its own, a part of its sovereign territory,” and
that "one of its policy objectives is to drive Palestinians out of Area C,
at least in part to facilitate its future annexation to Israel.”

Furthermore, B’Tselem implies without any empirical substantiation that the
situation of occupation which has existed for 47 years is the result of
"Israel’s sweeping, long-term objectives” of annexation, and as such,
attributes to Israel all responsibility for the continuation of the
occupation.

B’Tselem prides itself and its reputation on being reliable and accurate and
bases its findings on "its own fieldwork and research, the results of which
are thoroughly cross-checked with relevant documents, official government
sources and information from other sources.”4 It is therefore curious as to
what serves as B’Tzelem’s empirical factual or legal basis for its unfounded
determinations about Israel’s policy and objectives.

In a similar curious and creative interpretation, B’Tselem presents the
widely acclaimed and acknowledged Israel-PLO "Oslo Accords” as serving
Israel’s purpose of annexation by "enable[ing] Israel to cement its control
over the entire West Bank” and to avoid a negotiated solution.

Does B’Tselem Repudiate the Oslo Accords?

B’Tselem appears to mislead its readers by deliberately ignoring the fact
that the Oslo Accords, which received endorsement by the UN and were
witnessed by the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, the U.S., Russia, the EU and
Norway, established a new and unique legal and political framework
agreed-upon by the Palestinians and Israel. This framework in effect
replaced what B’Tselem describes as "the occupation” with an agreed-upon,
unique sui generis regime applicable pending attainment of a permanent
status agreement. This framework obliged the parties to negotiate between
them a permanent status agreement, determining the ultimate sovereign status
of the territory and the powers and authority of the respective parties.

The assumption when these accords were finalized was, and still remains,
that only through direct and bona fide negotiations between them, and not
international intervention and pressure from politicized NGOs and foreign
powers, can a final agreement, which will cover all agreed-upon issues,
including Jerusalem, borders, refugees, settlements and the like, be
reached.

To attribute to Israel the sole responsibility for the non-attainment of the
permanent status agreement, and hence to what B’Tselem terms as "the 47-year
occupation,” is similarly without any empirical basis and is nothing more
than a biased and slanted political determination. It ignores the continuing
refusal by the Palestinian leadership to return to a negotiating mode,
preferring to by-pass negotiating directly with Israel by seeking
international intervention through the UN and other international bodies.

In claiming under the title of "Israeli occupation is here to stay” that
Israel is taking advantage of ”a legal framework appropriate for short term
solutions,” B’Tselem is also misleading its readers and falsely claiming to
make a legal determination regarding the anticipated or actual length of an
occupation, or regarding the foreseeable extent of the negotiating process.
Such false determination by B’Tselem has absolutely no legal basis.

In this context, a report issued in 2012 by the Legal Adviser of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on a meeting of legal and
humanitarian experts under the auspices of the ICRC regarding "Occupation
and other forms of administration of foreign territory,” in discussing the
subject of "Prolonged Occupation”, states that: "…the participants agreed
that International Humanitarian Law did not set any limits to the time span
of an occupation. It was therefore recognized that nothing under
International Humanitarian Law would prevent occupying powers from embarking
on a long-term occupation and that occupation would continue to provide the
legal framework applicable in such circumstances.”5

Regrettably, misleading readers with false information from unreliable
sources would appear to have become the modus operandi of B’Tselem. It is
particularly evident in its coverage and monitoring of human rights abuses
during the various military confrontations between Hamas and Israel in the
Gaza Strip, replete with inaccurate and unreliable factual claims and
unsubstantiated legal determinations.6,7

In criticizing B’Tselem’s modus operandi during the recent 2014 Gaza
conflict, NGO Monitor’s legal advisor Anne Herzberg claims in an article
entitled "B’Tselem adds to the chorus of false Gaza war allegations”:

"B’Tselem’s claims regarding international law are marked by major omissions
and distortions. It notably fails to state that under the laws of war, the
presence of civilians does not render military objectives immune from
attack. B’Tselem also does not explain why targeting Hamas fighters or Hamas
command centers did not ‘effectively assist military efforts’ or ‘provide a
military advantage’ to Israel.”

"B’Tselem has a history of presenting faulty information on civilian
casualties in alleged attacks against ‘families bombed at home.’ Independent
studies have identified at least 14 combatants present in such incidents,
whom B’Tselem misleadingly portrayed as innocent civilians.”8


B’Tselem’s Obligation

By presenting itself as a reliable human rights monitoring group while at
the same time accepting funding from governments and sources with a clearly
partisan, anti-Israel bias, B'Tselem is in fact, misleading its
constituents.

The constituents include organizations such as the UN's Human Rights Council
Gaza fact-finding committee, which, in its recent report on the Gaza
conflict, placed heavy reliance on B'Tselem's reporting.

While it is clearly not a legal body, B'Tselem nevertheless repeatedly
permits itself to render flawed, over-generalized and sometimes
irresponsible legal determinations and accusations.

If B'Tselem genuinely seeks to reinstate any iota of credibility and
reliability, it must function in a manner true to its declared policies,
including reviewing its modus operandi and its financial sources.

Only then can it come to the international community with clean hands.

* * *

Notes

1 http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem
2
http://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/2011_btselem_english_brochure.pdf
3 http://www.btselem.org/publications/47_year_long_temporary_occupation
4 Ibid, footnote 2
5 ICRC publication, April 2012, at page 72
6 See The Gaza War 2014; The War Israel Did Not Want and the Disaster It
Averted, http://jcpa.org/the-gaza-war-2014/ and specifically "Hamas’ Silent
Partners” and "Human Shields and Inflated Casualty Numbers.”
7 See "The NGO Front in the Gaza War,” Feb. 2009,
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/NGO_Front_Gaza.pdf and
specifically at page 32 "B’Tselem: Illusion of Credibility” which cites
Jonatan D. Halevi, "The struggle over Israel’s narrative through statistics
on the number of Palestinians killed in IDF operations,” JCPA Blog, October
26, 2008 (Hebrew). Available at
https://web.archive.org/web/20090805123744/http://www.jcpa.org.il/Templates/showpage.asp?FID=528&DBID=1&LNGID=2&TMID=99&IID=19183
and CAMERA, "In 2007, B’Tselem Casualty Count Doesn’t Add Up,” September 4,
2008 (updated November 2, 2008). Available at
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=39&x_article=1533
8
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/b_tselem_adds_to_the_chorus_of_false_gaza_war_allegations
===========
Amb. Alan Baker participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo
Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with
Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy
director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel's
ambassador to Canada.