Aims and Means. No. 1
The documents presented here reveal an important, and, until now, unknown aspect of the efforts the Israeli government made to deflect criticism over human rights violations which were part of the occupation since the very beginning. The documents describe events that took place during the first decade of the occupation, but they echo a practice that is still in existence today – manipulative efforts to undermine the work of human rights organizations.
This collection of documents contains 13 detailed and approved requests for Ministry of Foreign Affairs funding to cover the ongoing operating costs of human rights organizations and members’ travel to international conferences from 1969 to 1977. The requests were prepared by the ministry’s liaisons to the organizations: the officials of the International Organization Department (also called UN Department A) in the MFA.
These documents reveal that during that time period, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided Amnesty Israel (part of Amnesty International) and the Israeli Association for Human Rights (affiliated to the International Federation for Human Rights, FIDH) with annual funding.
This is a memo from the deputy director of the MFA’s UN A Department, Zvi Neeman, to the Deputy UN Permanent Representative in New York Mr. Shabtai Rosenne. The memo reviews various avenues available to Israel to direct the actions of Israeli human rights bodies, particularly in relation to an international one – the International League for Human Rights (ILHR).
Download the document’s English translation: click here (pdf)
The memo lists three possible ways the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could intervene in civilian action for human rights in Israel. The letter indicates the ministry had already discussed the three propositions with John Carey, President of New York-based ILHR, which was considered the “conservative right wing” among international human rights organizations:
1) Establishing an academic human rights institute, headed by Dr. Yoram Dinstein, that would become a member of the ILHR and take the place of the Israeli League for Human Rights.
2) Encouraging the Israeli Association for Human Rights to join the ILHR, while “making it stronger” through a new chapter, or connections to Dinstein’s future institute.
3) Staging a “putsch” in the Israeli League for Human Rights.
In his response, Rosenne addressed each of the intervention possibilities. He believed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should, to the extent possible, encourage Dr. Dinstein to set up an academic human rights institution, and agreed with the suggestions regarding the Israeli Association for Human Rights. He also said that the possibility of staging a putsch in the Israeli League for Human Rights had been discussed with the ILHR president, but that they “threw cold water on the idea”.
In this letter, the political advisor to the minister of foreign affairs, Mordechai Kidron, provides his recommendations with respect to establishing a human rights institute at Tel Aviv University. Kidron reported that Dr. Yoram Dinstein had informed the MFA of his intention to found an independent research institute linked to the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, and that an agreement had been reached that said institute would be affiliated with the International League for Human Rights – first in addition to the Israeli League for Human Rights, which Kidron said was “a constant source of damage”, and later exclusively.
According to Kidron, such an institute would allow Israel to build a more positive image abroad with respect to human rights in Israel and the administered territories. Kidron noted that “government tools are insufficient” for pursuing this goal, and, therefore, asked that the ministry consider providing half the institute’s estimated start-up cost from its public diplomacy budget.
A letter from Amensty International Dutch Section caused an internal discussions on the staffing of the organization’s Israel section. “I will have you know the Amnesty Israel section is made up of one man (more accurately, one woman),” wrote Nathan Bar Yaakiv, director of MFA’s UN A Department to Chanan Bar On, director of the MFA’sdirector-general office. We keep in touch with her, but she cannot be trusted with everything. The important thing is that we get information about internal discussions within the organizations from her. This may be an opportunity to consider establishing a section of Amnesty in Israel that is made up of people who have a little more clout and are better able to perform.” Bar On wrote he agreed, and suggested Bar Yaakov will consult on the matter with Meir Rozen, MFA’s legal advisor and Mordechai Kidron (“Reggie”), the minister’s diplomatic advisor.
After no funding was found to assist in the establishment of the institute Prof. Dinstein wanted to found in the previous year, Dinstein appealed to the ministry’s director general, Mordechai Gazit. Prof. Dinstein asked the director general to reconsider the possibility of establishing a human rights institute with him at the realm and links to the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law.
In the letter, Dinstein noted that the idea of founding the institution had been widely supported in the past and mentioned the benefit it could bring to public diplomacy and the damage that would be caused to Israel’s diplomatic status at the time without it. Dinstein concludes his letter expressing puzzlement as to why a minor budgetary difficulty was blocking a move that was required and desirable for Israel.
This is a letter from Deputy Director of the International Organization Department, Sinai Rom, to Chair of the Israeli Association for Human Rights (NOT the similarly named Association for Civil Rights in Israel), Adv. Yeshayahu Pevzner, regarding a request for funding the association had made to the ministry. This response letter includes a detailed account of the funding provided by the foreign affairs ministry to the association in the 1969 to 1975 fiscal years, to cover activities in Israel and travel to conference abroad.
Download the document’s English translation: click here (pdf)
Responding to a question posed to him by Chair Pevzner, Rom recommended the association avoid bringing up the issue of “the genocide in Burundi” at the International Federation for Human Rights conference, travel to which was funded by the ministry: “[W]e do not think there is a point in us asking to bring up the issue of the genocide in Burundi at the Paris conference. We must focus on problems of this sort that directly relate to us, such as the problem of Jews in Arab countries”.
Four months after his election as chair of Amnesty Israel’s board, Prof. Yoram Dinstein reports to Deputy Director of the UN A Department, Sinai Rom, about the actions he had taken, both in organizing the section and in responding to various communications made to him. Dinstein divulged to Rom the content of meetings he attended as head of the section with top Amnesty International officials, highlighting friction areas within the organization’s executive. Prof. Dinstein then goes on to report about ongoing activities, relaying how he handled communications Amnesty Israel had received from the movement’s sections in Austria, Germany and London, regarding suspected Israeli human rights violations, and how he responded to the allegations, coordinating his responses with various Israeli officials.
Download the document’s English translation: click here (pdf)
The letter concludes with a request for an urgent disbursement from the ministry to cover the cost of the Israeli section’s Amnesty International membership fees, registration as an association and routine expenses – to a total of 2,500 Israeli pounds.
After the London Times published an op-ed by leading human rights lawyer Felicia Langer, criticizing Israeli practices in the Occupied Territories, Yoram Dinstein authored a response attacking Langer and her information. He signed with his titles as editor of the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights and chairman of Amnesty International’s Israel National Section.
The document here is the text of the article and Distein’s cover letter to the Times, which the MFA’s Hasbara department sent to the Embassy in London, specifying Dinstein will send the quoted op-ed and cover letter to the Times the following day.
This is a communication from Daniel Jacobson, a member of Amnesty Israel’s executive committee to Deputy Director of the UN A Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sinai Rom. Jacobson informs Rom that the Amnesty Israel committee had discussed a request made by a resident of Jerusalem (who had been a major Amnesty activist) to join the section, and had decided to obtain the position of the ministry on the matter. He enclosed two letters sent by the activist for Rom to review. Rom responded he believed the woman should join the Amnesty section in Tel Aviv, so long as there was no section in Jerusalem, where she lived.
This document is a report from Chair of the Israeli Association for Human Rights, Adv. Yeshayahu Pevzner, about the organization and its activities.
Pevzer shared his reservations regarding a rally against administrative detention he had attended along with another member of the association, Prof. Muskat. Pevzner relays that Adv. Blum, an envoy from the International Federation for Human Rights had arrived especially to follow the “traitor trial” in Haifa, and concluded “all complaints regarding torture had been fabricated”. Prof. Muskat printed the memo in the quarterly the edited. The crowd in the gathering, which was composed mainly of “people whose special tendencies we are aware of”, was not sympathetic to what was said, Pevzner noted. Still, “I wrote to the prison board with respect to torture and received a written response that they had not received any complaints from any prisoners about torture”.
Pevzner also reported about the association’s work to mitigate and disprove communications received from around the world regarding Israeli human rights violations, and the preparations the association was making to provide the Knesset Constitution Committee with its comments on a bill for a civil and human rights basic law the committee was considering. Pevzner also asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to inform the association what issues the ministry would like to bring to the agenda at the International Federation for Human Rights conference it was going to attend in Paris.
This is a handwritten letter from Chair of Amnesty Israel, Prof. Yoram Dinstein, to Sinai Rom, Ministry of Foreign Affairs UN A Department Deputy Director. In his letter, Dinstein wishes to coordinate the response to a communication Amnesty Israel had received from an Amnesty group in France. In the original letter, which was enclosed with Dinstein’s letter, the French group asked the Israeli section to clarify its position on statements made by the Israeli minister of police, Shlomo Hillel, who said in an interview Amnesty was not an objective organization.
The French section also inquired after the reasons for the dispute between the Government of Israel and Amnesty International. Dinstein suggested to Rom that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs send written materials in French to the French section of Amnesty, and recommended as specific official in the Israeli embassy in Paris, who he thought should take over handling the matter.
Ahead of Amnesty International’s annual council, Prof. Dinstein approached Mordechai Kidron, the Foreign Minister’s diplomatic advisor, and detailed his request for MFA funding of a Amnesty’s Israel Section representative’s travel. He specified among other things, the need to thwart Amnesty’s secretariat move from London to Geneva and the anticipated discussion on deepening Amnesty’s involvement in the Middle East.
In a classified cable sent from the Israeli embassy in London to the political advisor to the foreign minister, Mordechai Kidron, Prof. Dinstein reports about his meetings with Amnesty personnel in London. He had had one meeting with all members of Amnesty’s international secretariat, and one personal meeting with Amnesty International Secretary, Martin Ennals.
Download the document’s English translation: click here (pdf)
During the meeting with the Amnesty International secretariat, Dinstein highlighted “legal and factual flaws” in the organization’s report about prisoners of war, and said secretariat officials agreed the report was not a good one. Dinstein asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to decide whether to respond to the report via the embassy in London, or the Amnesty section in Israel. Prof. Dinstein also reported he had suggested to Ennals that Amnesty avoid, for a time, criticizing Israel as a “cooling off period” between Israel and the organization. The cable ends with Prof. Dinstein noting Amnesty Israel’s International Amnesty membership fees must be paid, as otherwise he would be denied the vote in the upcoming St. Gallen council.
This document is a report from Prof. Yoram Dinstein to the Ministry of Interior UN A Department Deputy Director regarding the Amnesty International council in Switzerland, which he attended as head of Amnesty’s Israeli section.
Download the document’s English translation: click here (pdf)
It appears that this was Prof. Dinstein’s first Amnesty International council, which is why he opens his letter with a review of Amnesty International’s history, and a description of the areas it covers, its institutions, conferences and decision making processes. Prof. Dinstein then shares his views on Amnesty members’ political positions, the movement’s approach to Israel and individual members’ personal views on Israel.
In his report, Prof. Dinstein presents his impression that the level of discussion at the council was, by and large, low and disappointing and that most discussions centered on technical, administrative matters. He spoke of his talks with members of the international movement and detailed some of the main dilemmas preoccupying the organization at the time, and their possible ramifications for Israeli public diplomacy efforts. Prof. Dinstein says he played a “key role” in a discussion of Amnesty’s organizational structure: “I obstructed many sections, caused changes in others and passed a resolution that establishes a policy committee (designed to take some of the excessive powers of the executive)”. Dinstein also noted that “if we did take it as an important mission, we could reach the [Amnesty International] executive after two-three years of activism”. Prof. Dinstein reported the organization was preparing for a large fundraising drive, in the context of which it was debating how to prevent money form illegitimate sources like the CIA from coming in, and how to prevent clashes between local and international funders.
In this letter, Chair of Amnesty Israel, Prof. Yoram Dinstein informs Sinai Rom, Ministry of Foreign Affairs UN A Department Deputy Director about his meeting with the secretary general of Amnesty International in Washington. Dinstein relays Secretary Ennals’ counters to Israel’s response to the report Amnesty published on prisoners of war, and his suggestion that Amnesty distribute Israel’s response to the sections, along with the organization’s counter response.
This document contains a detailed report from Prof. Yoram Dinstein, Chair of Amnesty’s Israeli section, regarding a three-week trip to Europe and the USA he had recently returned from. He traveled to the USA on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to Europe on behalf of an organization called the “Inter-University Review Team”. However, his meetings in Europe, he reports, were in fact organized by the staff of the Israeli embassies in the countries he visited: Austria, the Netherlands and the UK.
In his detailed report, Prof. Dinstein presented his activities and meetings, and mostly the positions he heard from the people and groups he met. He shared his conclusions which also touched on the steps Israeli public diplomacy should take. Dinstein also met with a Dutch Amnesty group. Responding to their questions about Arab prisoners they were considering adopting as prisoners of conscience, “I explained, at length, the entire issue of military courts, administrative detention etc., and I believe I have solved more than a few potential problems”.
In response to Sinai Rom’s funding request for Amnesty Israel, Mordechai Kidron responds: “You will have to convince me that the allocation [to Amnesty] is justified. If a group of people wants to set up an Amnesty section in Israel, and join Amnesty International that is its business. This initiative has been of very small benefit to the country, and I personally find it difficult to present the request for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to fund it”. In response, Rom asks: “Would you be willing to approve an allocation for half the amount? It is difficult to turn them away after we paid the entire sum in previous years”. “Okay”, Kidron replied.
