35 ms·

To be fair, it is quite murky to what extent groups like Al-Haq are associated with the PFLP (which, with its history of aircraft hijackings and suicide bombing

To be fair, it is quite murky to what extent groups like Al-Haq are associated with the PFLP (which, with its history of aircraft hijackings and suicide bombings, is undoubtedly a terrorist group). There is plenty of purported evidence of financial and personnel links out there, and I really doubt HN is the right forum to decide either way (unless someone is an expert).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 5y ago
>There is plenty of purported evidence The name for this is "allegations," specifically "unconfirmed allegations," AKA "random BS."
zouhair 5y ago
Wait until you learn what was said about Mandela.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Seriously. Do people forget the rhetoric around Mandela and the ANC during apartheid South Africa? He was only taken off the terrorist watch list in '08.
  - WaitWaitWha 5y ago
    Seeing necklacing with your own eyes is something to forget, but cannot.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    Mandela was offered an early release if he renounced violence. He did not take that offer. I don't know about after his release, but for most of his life he believed in achieving his aims with violence, if need be. As for the violence the ANC perpetrated: It would definitely be considered terrorism today.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Super disingenuous in my view to have some purity test around renouncing violence against a white supremacist state. Is political violence not justified in that context? Were violent European revolutions against their monarchs all terroristic? Honestly surprised to see so many apartheid apologists in these replies.
      - pvarangot 5y ago
        > Were violent European revolutions against their monarchs all terroristic? Unfortunately the answer is something like "yes but we don't want to speak about that because it makes us feel uncomfortable" most of the time. Thing is western society has been doing well the past 20/30 years regarding civil-war like violence at a large scale and for a hard to fix issue, and no one wants to talk about how or why but everyone wants to believe days of violent civil uprising are long gone.
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        No, they weren't. Nevermind the fact that "terrorism" is a stupid word - these were justified conflicts of a people against tyranny. Violence for those aims is justified.
        pvarangot 5y ago
        I don't think terrorism is a stupid word, it just means terrorizing civil population outside of normal militia vs. militia violence on the field. In a lot of those conflicts civilians that were persecuted by the government fought back with unconventional action, I'm not saying it was not justified, but it did involve innocent bystanders. For example during the end of the French revolution, as a reaction to the Reign of Terror and Robespierre, on the storming of the Hall of Paris. What's stupid is thinking that on a violent conflict only one side can be guilty of terrorism.
      - joelbluminator 5y ago
        Was the violence always against the state or was it also against innocent civilians? Not really the same thing.
juanani 5y ago
You cant have an article criticizing Zion without you shills showing up. Be gone
Debug_Overload 5y ago
What evidence is "out there"? So far, there's no evidence, from what is being reported by legitimate news agencies who saw the supposed evidence. Example: https://apnews.com/article/business-europe-middle-east-israel-security-services-e90e371a68ceb22b7f15f4b381ff5412 https://apnews.com/article/business-europe-middle-east-israe...
- q1w2 5y ago
  In 2018 all payment processors (MC/Visa/Amex) banned payments to Al-Haq due to allegations that they forwarded money to PFLP, so this is not new news. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-001932_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-00193... This was based on testimony given in court by two Palestinian accountants that Al-Haq was funneling money to terrorism. It should be noted that Al-Haq does not make disclose either the sources or destinations of donation money.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    Those allegations came from the same place this “evidence” did.
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      Since when is testimony from their own Palestinian accountants not considered evidence?
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        > The dossier relies almost entirely on the interrogation of Said Abedat and Amru Hamudeh, who worked as accountants for the Union of Health Committees, a separate group which was outlawed in January 2020. Both were reportedly fired in 2019 for embezzling funds, and were later detained by the Shin Bet. Their lawyers could not be reached for comment. Not their own accountants
        5y ago
Quanttek 5y ago
This is undoubtedly false. Speaking of "purported evidence" when there is literally no credible evidence submitted by the Israeli government for these allegations is misleading at best. Their whole case rests on the testimony of two Palestinian accountants, likely attained by torture, that worked for two organizations that were not included in the list of six [1]. They merely state it is "general knowledge" that these orgs are funneling money to PFLP without providing any evidence. These testimonies have been already partially refuted by public information. Multiple European governments and a large range of reputable international human rights organizations, incl HRW and Amnesty, have rejected the Israeli allegations as baseless and unsupported. These organizations are highly reputable and been supported for years by the EU, uk and other reputable international donors. They are targeted for their role in opposing the Israeli occupation and human rights violations and, in the case of Al-Haq, likely targeted for their role in the ICC investigation. [1] https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/ https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/
- pythonlion 5y ago
  why Israel need to answer to EU and why everything EU does is automatically right?
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I think this is a loaded and defensive question that tries to broaden the scope of the allegation to something obviously wrong. Obviously everything the EU does isn’t automatically right because it’s the EU. But maybe if multiple reputable human rights organizations are condemning allegations of a country as baseless and part of ongoing human rights violations then maybe that specific thing is a correct statement of fact.
    - pythonlion 5y ago
      or maybe its conflict of interests. I'm not talking of the general situation but about this action by Israel government and the response. And this all human right groups are funded by the EU if its private or public it doesn't matter from the Israeli government perspective. Or maybe this groups doesn't know everything? why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? some of them are even have pro-Palestinian independence stance
VictorPath 5y ago
Al-Haq is a Palestinian human rights NGO funded by the European Union. Two weeks ago, Israel labeled six Palestinian NGOs, including al-Haq, terrorist organizations and has outlawed them. This was condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others. The EU also funded the other Palestinian human rights NGOs which Israel outlawed. The US had an office in Jerusalem dealing with Palestinians that Trump closed down. Biden and Blinken began to reopen it but the Israeli government have refused permission for the US to reopen it. This is following Israel's throwing Palestinians out of their homes in East Jerusalem back in May and replacing them with settlers, which was followed by a mass bombing of the Gaza strip by Israel, including the building in which the Associated Press had its office, a building Israel said it purposely targeted. This amidst settlement of Palestine's West Bank by Israel which is opposed by multiple UN resolutions supported by an overwhelming majority of nations.
- bawolff 5y ago
  I don't understand how people can think Israel mass bombed gaza. Israel has one of the largest militaries in the world. If they decided to mass bomb somewhere, it wouldn't be a place anymore. Its not the 1800s. A mass bombing is not something anyone walks away from in the modern world.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tremon 5y ago
    So perhaps the obvious conclusion should be that your definition of "mass bombing" is not what people mean when they use that term?
    - bawolff 5y ago
      I was under the impression it was a synonym for area bombing - e.g. throwing a bunch of bombs at a place to inflict damage in a general way. As opposed to having a very specific target. What's your definition?
otrahuevada 5y ago
Unless you count the oddly vague couple admissions extracted under torture from some random accountants as evidence of something, which you shouldn't because torture is not and shouldn't ever be considered a valid way to extract actionable information, being "fair" has nothing to do with what is being done here.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Having been interrogated myself, it's incredible how defiant I was until my interrogators threatened my wife, and at that point I told them I'd do whatever they wanted.
- q1w2 5y ago
  There is no evidence of torture whatsoever. This is a strange lie you keep posting with your link to 972mag, a biased Palestinian defense magazine. If you dig a little deeper at what the actual accountant's lawyer said - he said his client was seated in a chair with his hands tied behind his back during his initial arrest. Inventing a new name ("The shabah position") doesn't make it torture. Obviously the lawyer wants to protect his client from retribution from Al-Haq, so he will make outlandish accusations of "torture". I don't blame him - I'd be afraid of Al-Haq too after testifying against them. ...but remember that both accountants provided detailed testimony in an open court room - not from a torture chamber. Your claims torture are false.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > but remember that both accountants provided detailed testimony in an open court room - not from a torture chamber. That’s not actually a counter argument for torture here. Tons of torture victims will walk into court and say everything they said in the torture chamber; the threat of continued torture of them and their loved ones is quite the motivator. History is littered with examples of torture victims “confessing” in court, often to crimes that were laughably made up.
  - otrahuevada 5y ago
    https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/ https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/ Oh isn'there? Please, stop lying. The established facts, that the Shin Bet tortures people and israeli courts accept anything extracted under torture as testimony, do not in any way make your attempt at attacking sources of information nor your claim that this is false any more valid. Your insistence makes me wonder what kind of incentives you have to be perceiving to go out of your way to defend a bald-faced lie like this. Can we go back to having an earnest discussion instead of a boring, hasbara-typical farce?
newacct583 5y ago
This seems like an attempt at misdirection. In a lawful society, the reason for surveilling suspected terrorists is because you actually suspect them of terrorism, not because they're currently your political opponents. If you ran with a gang in your 20's, that doesn't give the government permanent access to a wire tap when you start doing social justice advocacy in your 40's.
bhouston 5y ago
The issue with many terrorism designations, such as these, is that it allows for the evidence of such designations to remain secret. It is great for banning organizations you do not like based on innuendo. It would be better if the evidence was made public and could be judged -- when it isn't you have to wonder whether it is being hidden because it can not stand up to scrutiny.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rhizome 5y ago

>There is plenty of purported evidence The name for this is "allegations," specifically "unconfirmed allegations," AKA "random BS."

zouhair 5y ago

Wait until you learn what was said about Mandela.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Seriously. Do people forget the rhetoric around Mandela and the ANC during apartheid South Africa? He was only taken off the terrorist watch list in '08.
- WaitWaitWha 5y ago
  Seeing necklacing with your own eyes is something to forget, but cannot.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  Mandela was offered an early release if he renounced violence. He did not take that offer. I don't know about after his release, but for most of his life he believed in achieving his aims with violence, if need be. As for the violence the ANC perpetrated: It would definitely be considered terrorism today.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Super disingenuous in my view to have some purity test around renouncing violence against a white supremacist state. Is political violence not justified in that context? Were violent European revolutions against their monarchs all terroristic? Honestly surprised to see so many apartheid apologists in these replies.
    - pvarangot 5y ago
      > Were violent European revolutions against their monarchs all terroristic? Unfortunately the answer is something like "yes but we don't want to speak about that because it makes us feel uncomfortable" most of the time. Thing is western society has been doing well the past 20/30 years regarding civil-war like violence at a large scale and for a hard to fix issue, and no one wants to talk about how or why but everyone wants to believe days of violent civil uprising are long gone.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        No, they weren't. Nevermind the fact that "terrorism" is a stupid word - these were justified conflicts of a people against tyranny. Violence for those aims is justified.
        pvarangot 5y ago
        I don't think terrorism is a stupid word, it just means terrorizing civil population outside of normal militia vs. militia violence on the field. In a lot of those conflicts civilians that were persecuted by the government fought back with unconventional action, I'm not saying it was not justified, but it did involve innocent bystanders. For example during the end of the French revolution, as a reaction to the Reign of Terror and Robespierre, on the storming of the Hall of Paris. What's stupid is thinking that on a violent conflict only one side can be guilty of terrorism.
    - joelbluminator 5y ago
      Was the violence always against the state or was it also against innocent civilians? Not really the same thing.

juanani 5y ago

You cant have an article criticizing Zion without you shills showing up. Be gone

Debug_Overload 5y ago

What evidence is "out there"? So far, there's no evidence, from what is being reported by legitimate news agencies who saw the supposed evidence. Example: https://apnews.com/article/business-europe-middle-east-israel-security-services-e90e371a68ceb22b7f15f4b381ff5412 https://apnews.com/article/business-europe-middle-east-israe...

q1w2 5y ago
In 2018 all payment processors (MC/Visa/Amex) banned payments to Al-Haq due to allegations that they forwarded money to PFLP, so this is not new news. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-001932_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-00193... This was based on testimony given in court by two Palestinian accountants that Al-Haq was funneling money to terrorism. It should be noted that Al-Haq does not make disclose either the sources or destinations of donation money.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Those allegations came from the same place this “evidence” did.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Since when is testimony from their own Palestinian accountants not considered evidence?
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      > The dossier relies almost entirely on the interrogation of Said Abedat and Amru Hamudeh, who worked as accountants for the Union of Health Committees, a separate group which was outlawed in January 2020. Both were reportedly fired in 2019 for embezzling funds, and were later detained by the Shin Bet. Their lawyers could not be reached for comment. Not their own accountants
      - 5y ago

Quanttek 5y ago

This is undoubtedly false. Speaking of "purported evidence" when there is literally no credible evidence submitted by the Israeli government for these allegations is misleading at best. Their whole case rests on the testimony of two Palestinian accountants, likely attained by torture, that worked for two organizations that were not included in the list of six [1]. They merely state it is "general knowledge" that these orgs are funneling money to PFLP without providing any evidence. These testimonies have been already partially refuted by public information. Multiple European governments and a large range of reputable international human rights organizations, incl HRW and Amnesty, have rejected the Israeli allegations as baseless and unsupported. These organizations are highly reputable and been supported for years by the EU, uk and other reputable international donors. They are targeted for their role in opposing the Israeli occupation and human rights violations and, in the case of Al-Haq, likely targeted for their role in the ICC investigation. [1] https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/ https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/

pythonlion 5y ago
why Israel need to answer to EU and why everything EU does is automatically right?
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I think this is a loaded and defensive question that tries to broaden the scope of the allegation to something obviously wrong. Obviously everything the EU does isn’t automatically right because it’s the EU. But maybe if multiple reputable human rights organizations are condemning allegations of a country as baseless and part of ongoing human rights violations then maybe that specific thing is a correct statement of fact.
  - pythonlion 5y ago
    or maybe its conflict of interests. I'm not talking of the general situation but about this action by Israel government and the response. And this all human right groups are funded by the EU if its private or public it doesn't matter from the Israeli government perspective. Or maybe this groups doesn't know everything? why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? some of them are even have pro-Palestinian independence stance

VictorPath 5y ago

Al-Haq is a Palestinian human rights NGO funded by the European Union. Two weeks ago, Israel labeled six Palestinian NGOs, including al-Haq, terrorist organizations and has outlawed them. This was condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others. The EU also funded the other Palestinian human rights NGOs which Israel outlawed. The US had an office in Jerusalem dealing with Palestinians that Trump closed down. Biden and Blinken began to reopen it but the Israeli government have refused permission for the US to reopen it. This is following Israel's throwing Palestinians out of their homes in East Jerusalem back in May and replacing them with settlers, which was followed by a mass bombing of the Gaza strip by Israel, including the building in which the Associated Press had its office, a building Israel said it purposely targeted. This amidst settlement of Palestine's West Bank by Israel which is opposed by multiple UN resolutions supported by an overwhelming majority of nations.

bawolff 5y ago
I don't understand how people can think Israel mass bombed gaza. Israel has one of the largest militaries in the world. If they decided to mass bomb somewhere, it wouldn't be a place anymore. Its not the 1800s. A mass bombing is not something anyone walks away from in the modern world.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tremon 5y ago
  So perhaps the obvious conclusion should be that your definition of "mass bombing" is not what people mean when they use that term?
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I was under the impression it was a synonym for area bombing - e.g. throwing a bunch of bombs at a place to inflict damage in a general way. As opposed to having a very specific target. What's your definition?

otrahuevada 5y ago

Unless you count the oddly vague couple admissions extracted under torture from some random accountants as evidence of something, which you shouldn't because torture is not and shouldn't ever be considered a valid way to extract actionable information, being "fair" has nothing to do with what is being done here.

kingcharles 5y ago
Having been interrogated myself, it's incredible how defiant I was until my interrogators threatened my wife, and at that point I told them I'd do whatever they wanted.
q1w2 5y ago
There is no evidence of torture whatsoever. This is a strange lie you keep posting with your link to 972mag, a biased Palestinian defense magazine. If you dig a little deeper at what the actual accountant's lawyer said - he said his client was seated in a chair with his hands tied behind his back during his initial arrest. Inventing a new name ("The shabah position") doesn't make it torture. Obviously the lawyer wants to protect his client from retribution from Al-Haq, so he will make outlandish accusations of "torture". I don't blame him - I'd be afraid of Al-Haq too after testifying against them. ...but remember that both accountants provided detailed testimony in an open court room - not from a torture chamber. Your claims torture are false.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > but remember that both accountants provided detailed testimony in an open court room - not from a torture chamber. That’s not actually a counter argument for torture here. Tons of torture victims will walk into court and say everything they said in the torture chamber; the threat of continued torture of them and their loved ones is quite the motivator. History is littered with examples of torture victims “confessing” in court, often to crimes that were laughably made up.
- otrahuevada 5y ago
  https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/ https://www.972mag.com/shin-bet-dossier-palestinian-ngos/ Oh isn'there? Please, stop lying. The established facts, that the Shin Bet tortures people and israeli courts accept anything extracted under torture as testimony, do not in any way make your attempt at attacking sources of information nor your claim that this is false any more valid. Your insistence makes me wonder what kind of incentives you have to be perceiving to go out of your way to defend a bald-faced lie like this. Can we go back to having an earnest discussion instead of a boring, hasbara-typical farce?

newacct583 5y ago

This seems like an attempt at misdirection. In a lawful society, the reason for surveilling suspected terrorists is because you actually suspect them of terrorism, not because they're currently your political opponents. If you ran with a gang in your 20's, that doesn't give the government permanent access to a wire tap when you start doing social justice advocacy in your 40's.

bhouston 5y ago

The issue with many terrorism designations, such as these, is that it allows for the evidence of such designations to remain secret. It is great for banning organizations you do not like based on innuendo. It would be better if the evidence was made public and could be judged -- when it isn't you have to wonder whether it is being hidden because it can not stand up to scrutiny.