The annual report of Amnesty International dealing with human rights charged Israel with violations of human rights and the Geneva Convention. The Government of Israel responded by questioning the accuracy and objectivity of the report. Amnesty International tended to ignore the fact that there was an uprising in the areas since December 1987, and that Israel had to take measures to protect its civilians, soldiers and even many Palestinians attacked and often killed by their brethren, charged with helping Israeli authorities. Amnesty International did not relate to previous Israeli responses to its reports and accusations. Text:
The section on Israel and the Administered Areas in this year's Amnesty International Annual Report performs a dubious service for human rights and renews doubts regarding the organization's commitment to accuracy and objectivity. The Report downplays Palestinian violence while criticizing Israel's efforts to act in compliance with its duty under international law to maintain security and public order (Hague Regulations 1907, Art. 43). Furthermore, A.I. fails to place its statistics, which are not accurate, in context by omitting background details necessary to evaluate the proportionality of Israel's responses to intifada violence. A.I. fails to mention that during the relevant year, participants in the intifada perpetuated 71,792 public disturbances, 81 shootings, 5 grenade attacks, 651 Molotov cocktail attacks, 94 bombings, 173 "cold attacks" (mostly knives, clubs, axes, and swords), and 299 cases of arson. This violence forced 1193 Israeli civilians and 2815 members of the Israel Defense Forces to secure hospital treatment for their injuries. Even those statistics that do appear in the Report are inaccurate estimates. For example, the Report's figure for Palestinians killed in confrontations with the IDF is too high and that given for Palestinians killed by other Palestinians is too low.
A.I. defines a "prisoner of conscience" as one who has not used or advocated violence. Yet in the case of Israel, Amnesty ignores its own definition and adopts individuals who are admitted and active members of violent terrorist organizations. This misuse of the "Prisoner of conscience" label is a serious flaw in the Report which has yet to be addressed by Amnesty. We wish to reiterate that there exist no cases in which individuals are placed in prison solely because of their beliefs.
This year's Report again fails to accurately describe the reasons behind the imprisonment or detention of most of the individuals whose rights were allegedly violated. Persons who the Report characterizes with such benign terminology as "human rights fieldworkers", "journalists" and "political activists" were in fact convicted or detained for their illegal acts which endangered public safety and/or national security. They enjoyed the right to counsel of their choice and the right to petition the High Court of Justice. While it is true that in order to prevent the assassination of witnesses and to preserve confidential sources of intelligence information, recipients of administrative detention orders are not appraised of all the evidence against them, they are always informed of the basic reasons for their detention. Furthermore, all the evidence including the classified information is shown to the Court. Indeed, contrary to the Report's claim, a significant percent of appeals resulted in the cancellation or modification of the initial order. Also, the Report neglects to mention that the measure of administrative detention is expressly permitted by Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
We emphatically reject the Report's claim that Israel engages in "extrajudicial executions" ' The 1990 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report contradicts this baseless libel by stating that: "Political killings in Israel are neither practiced nor officially sanctioned."
Additionally, the Report minimizes the human rights violations committed against Palestinians by other Palestinians acting on orders of the PLO, Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. Amnesty's priorities are especially peculiar given that, even according to the Report's inaccurate statistics, the majority of fatalities during 1990 were the result of this internecine intimidation aimed at forcing Palestinians into accepting the terror organizations as their leadership. This is fully in keeping with A.I.'s longstanding unwillingness to call to account these terrorist organizations or even to name them as the instigators of violence, whether against Israelis or Palestinians.
While A.I.'s Report gives broad coverage to the claims of politically motivated critics of Israel (sometimes qualifying its adoption of their claims with words like 66 apparently" or "reportedly" which are used some 22 times), its reference to Israeli replies to A.I. generally gives short shrift to the investigations and detailed responses of the Ministry of Justice Human Rights Department. For example, A.I. has received detailed replies concerning the cases of Riad Shehabi and Abd EI-Rauf Ghabin, but the Report does not mention this fact. Worse still, A.I. manipulates certain of these responses to disparage Israel's commitment to preserving human rights. The Israeli Government, unlike most of the other countries in the Middle East, extends full cooperation to Amnesty International, investigates thoroughly its allegations, and responds to tens of thousands of individual queries which it receives from A.I. members each year. A.I. ignores these positive factors entirely.
Since most of the issues in the Report are a repetition of those raised in last year's report, we have attached hereto the Human Rights Department's critique of the 1990 Report. To date, no response has been forthcoming from Amnesty International.