Oxfam’s comments however, are ironic given the fact that Oxfam is itself a major part of the problem. Its own activities reflect a highly disproportionate focus on Israel and obsession with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Oxfam Great Britain alone put out 16 press releases on Israel between December 27, 2008 and January 30, 2009 – more than all of the press releases issued about the entire world in the month of June, 2009.  Oxfam has also lobbied the EU, held press conferences and published reports on the situation in Gaza, promoting the Palestinian narrative and fueling the conflict. As part of the DEC, Oxfam attempted to televise an appeal for Gaza on the BBC and Sky News, not for any other crisis.

So which came first – the media over-emphasis on Israel, or disproportionate NGO focus? Either way, the report is clear: UK citizens are not getting the picture, and Oxfam is part of the problem.

Aside from the extremely prejudicial and offensive nature of the effort, based primarily on Blachar’s status as an Israeli and as the head of an Israeli institution, the allegations are rooted in the baseless and out-dated reports of Amnesty International and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI). Their claims do not reflect the reality in Israel, and certainly not the reality of the Israeli Medical Association. In fact, the underlying accusation, the “involvement of medical staff in torture,” is never established beyond the NGOs.

This episode reveals the power of the “halo effect,” which grants credibility to NGOs that claim a human rights agenda and their allegations, and allows them to avoid scrutiny. Without any independent verification or confirmation, Amnesty’s and PCATI’s reports became the backbone of a smear campaign designed to generate pressure against Israel and promote a negative PR image of its policies. And Ms. Boseley reinforced this illusion by presenting the accusations as objective fact.

IJV was active in their objection to the Canadian boycott of the Durban II conference. IJV called the boycott of the conference an “opportunistic attempt to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism”, claiming that “[a]nti-Semitism cannot be ended by…the subjugation of another people” and accusing the Israeli government of “suppressi[ng]…democracy and human rights”.

IJV also argued that “[t]here is certainly nothing anti-Semitic in the DDPA” and declared their “unconditional[] endorse[ment]” of Durban II.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise then that IJV’s support of Durban II is followed by increased embracing of the Durban Strategy - by joining the BDS movement.

York’s defense seeks to answer the public statement issued by Hershell Ezrin, head of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA). This analysis was based on a careful examination of the speakers and their topics, which reveals that this conference “aims to explore a one-state, bi-national solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the imposition of which would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The conference will include a number of speakers who are recognizable for their roles as organizers and outspoken proponents of ‘Israel apartheid week’ and the Israel boycott movement.”

Far from an attack on academic freedom, such criticism highlights the very absence of the free exchange in a marketplace of ideas which is the indispensible foundation for academic freedom. The extremely complex history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and multiple dimensions of peace efforts contrast starkly with the narrowly constricted ideologies reflected in the list of 44 speakers. This information is readily available using the internet, and had the eleven sponsors — six from York, four from Queen’s university and a government funded research framework — exercised “due diligence”, they would have found that many of the speakers are virulent anti-Israeli activists, and are far removed from academic work to understand complex issues through research and debate. In other words, it is the conference that constitutes a brutal attack on academic freedom, rather than the analysts and critics.

Amidst the long list of speakers, there are a few genuine academics – whom critics might dismiss as fig leaves for the hard-core propagandists — but even here, the ideological range runs from strongly critical of Israel (but accepting the legitimacy of Jewish sovereign equality) to extremely critical (one-state promoters, tantamount to “wiping Israel off the map”.)  Although there are many academics whose research goes beyond one-dimensional Israel bashing, and examines the failures of Arab, Palestinian, and Moslem leaders to contribute to peace making, these dimensions are conspicuously absent from the program. In this Orwellian twist, the use of “academic freedom” is a mask for the crude censorship at York.

With so many obvious distortions, the defense offered by the President of York University is a farce. Without a free market of ideas, academic freedom, and even the concept of a university, is meaningless. Given a conference which fails to even hint at the complexity of the issues, the result is not censorship, but the transformation of the university into a macabre circus that sells hatred, martyrdom and murder.

In a free society, the circus, like the university, is open to all – as P.T. Barnum observed, “There’s a sucker born every minute”. But in the Middle East, such farces will only serve to fuel the vicious warfare and mass terror which has taken the lives of tens of thousands of Israelis, Palestinians, and others, and is escalating into nuclear confrontation. And York University has become an accomplice in this crime.

NGO Monitor will continue to provide updates on the list of speakers, stay tuned.

Meet the Speakers #1: Ali Abunimah
The first speaker on the list is Ali Abunimah, who runs a propaganda internet site known as the “Electronic Intifada”, specializing in demonization of Israel through articles such as “Why Israel won’t survive”. Abunimah is also affiliated with a political organization (PCHR) based in Gaza that systematically distorts and exploits the language of human rights – also to attack Israel. Abunimah’s groups frequently condone Palestinian terrorism using the euphemism of “resistance” and terms like “apartheid” and “racist” in reference to Israel – the exact opposite of promoting compromise and a two state solution. Attempts to feature speakers like Abunimah under the banner of peace research is dishonest, and rather than attempting to prevent this criticism by pretending that academic freedom is at stake, York university officials should welcome the analysis

Meet the Speakers #2: Jeff Halper
Jeff Halper is another veteran pro-Palestinian campaigner, far removed from any academic pursuits. He runs a small organization that claims to oppose the demolition of Palestinian houses, but most of his activities are aimed at generating support for the Palestinian narrative. He recently participated in sailing a few small boats from Cyprus to Hamas-controlled Gaza, hoping to engage in publicity-generating confrontations with the Israeli Navy. Halper often appears in support of Naim Ateek, whose speeches include classical antisemitic references, such as accusing Israel of “crucifying Palestinians”. The context of Palestinian mass terror attacks, the mangled bodies, and the hatred against Israelis that promotes this inhuman behavior, is entirely erased.

An Israeli columnist recently witnessed Halper urging “his Muslim listeners in an American university to reject the Arab Peace Initiative, because it serves the Muslim tyrants. He told his listeners that Israel is actually a force that serves world capitalism, in the framework of the attempt to make enormous populations in the world disappear. The antisemites could not have said it better.” To label such activities as promoting peace or remotely connected to university discourse is an insult to intelligent people. Recently, Halper’s main benefactor, the European Union, rejected his application for renewed funding, but York University – for reasons yet to be explained – is giving him the façade of academic legitimacy.

Meet the Speakers #3: Omar Barghouti
Omar Barghouti is an open supporter of the one-state solution, as he has written: “Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution,” including the right of return. Barghouti employs “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing” and “colonialism” rhetoric in his attacks on Israel. He is also a major proponent of anti-Israel boycotts.

Meet the Speakers #4: Uri Davis
Uri Davis calls himself a Palestinian Hebrew,and labels the Israeli-Arab conflict “[a] classic apartheid construction…between a settler-colonial state and an indigenous population dispossessed by the colonial project.” Davis also claims that “[w]hat the wall today represents is an attempt by the government of the State of Israel to cap the expulsion - the ethnic cleansing - perpetrated in the course of the 1948-49 war with a Bantustan solution for the rest of the country.” Uri Davis is also involved with Miftah, a group which disseminates the “Palestinian narrative and discourse globally.”  Miftah has characterized Palestinian terrorists as “activists” and suicide bombings as “resistance”.

Meet the Speakers #5: Adam Hanieh

Adam Hanieh is a member of the Al Awda Right of Return Group and has termed the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario decision to “participate in the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel” as a “step[] forward in the struggle against Israeli apartheid.” Hanieh has also worked for Defense for Children International/Palestine Section (DCI/PS), a group that exploits children’s rights, manipulates international law, and campaigns against Israel in the UN and other international forums. During the Gaza fighting, DCI/PS launched a website called “Gaza under attack” with news articles, videos and “figures and stories” about Israel’s “illegal act of aggression.”

Meet the Speakers #6: Hazem Jamjoum

Hazem Jamjoum is the Communications Officer for Badil, a radical NGO that promotes the so-called “right of return.” According to Badil, “the struggle against Israel’s colonial apartheid regime is one of the cornerstones of the struggle against state-sponsored racism and ongoing colonial policies worldwide.” Badil has been a leader in the BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) movement to isolate Israel internationally and encouraged “journalists to organize a targeted campaign to expose the lies of AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League and to expose the Jewish and Zionist community’s double standards regarding Nakba & Occupation.”  Jamjoum has also chaired the Al Awda Palestine Right to Return Coalition in Canada, and helped organize Israeli Apartheid Week in 2005 and 2006 at the University of Toronto.

Meet the Speakers #7: Naeem Jeenah

Naeem Jeenah is the spokesperson for the South African Palestine Solidarity Committee, which demonizes Israel with rhetoric such as, “end the massacre in Gaza” and “isolate apartheid Israel.” Jeenah has written that “Israel is, quite simply, an apartheid ethnocracy” and argued that “[t]he only solution…is a single bi-national state.” Jeenah has also claimed that “[c]learly, Zionism is a theory of ethnic cleansing and racism” and referred to Israeli “state terrorism.”

Meet the Speakers #8: George Bisharat

George Bisharat is a Palestinian activist, who has served as a legal advisor to the Palestinian Authority. He campaigns for boycotts of Israel, claiming “[i]f boycotting apartheid South Africa was appropriate, it is equally fair to boycott Israel on a similar record.”  Bisharat promotes the Palestinian narrative, asserting the so-called “right of return” and other dubious allegations.

Meet the Speakers #9: Efrat Ben-Ze’ev

Efrat Ben-Ze’ev is an activist with Ta’ayush an NGO which campaigns on behalf of the Palestinian narrative, using demonizing language (references to the Israeli “siege” and “apartheid wall”), supporting boycotts and sanctions against Israel, and instigating confrontations with Israeli soldiers. Ben-Ze’ev also participated in a conference organized by Sabeel, a radical, Christian, Palestinian NGO. Ben-Ze’ev addressed Israeli views on the “Nakba” and advocated higher Israeli exposure to “the Palestinian rendering of 1948.”

Meet the Speakers #10: Dana Olwan

Dana Olwan has referred to “Zionist myths” and the “apartheid wall.”  She has also accused Israel of “targeting and collective punishment of Palestinian civilians,” and claimed that Israel’s creation “was legitimized through racist Zionist narratives.”  Olwan has also argued that “Israel continues to employ racist and exclusionary legislative policies that prevent the seven million Palestinians living in the diaspora from returning to their homeland.” Olwan is the national chair of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, which supported Israeli Apartheid Week.

Meet the Speakers #11: Mazin Qumsiyeh

Qumsiyeh co-founded the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, was on the steering committee of the US Campaign to End the Occupation and has been actively involved with BoycottIsraeliGoods.org and Sabeel North America - the NGO behind the church divestment movement.  He accuses Israeli soldiers of acting “like Nazi guards in various situations,” and refers to the Palestinians as the “victims of Israeli colonialism” and the “apartheid wall.” Qumsiyeh’s website features a large image of all of Israel and the Palestinian Authority without borders, indicative of his support for a “one-state solution.”

Meet the Speakers #12: Marc H. Ellis

Marc Ellis uses Jewish symbols and language to promote a radical post-colonial ideology. He ascribes to a “Jewish theology of liberation,” accusing Zionism of representing “Constantinian Judaism” – “colonialism and imperialism.” Ellis frequently employs Nazi analogies in reference to Israel: “what the Nazis had not succeeded in accomplishing…we as Jews have embarked upon”;  “[t]o speak of the Holocaust without confessing our sins towards the Palestinian people and seeking a real justice with them is a hypocrisy that debases us as Jews.”  At Sabeel conferences, Ellis reportedly “display[ed] images of a helicopter gunship flying out of the Torah to document how Israeli use of force and sovereignty has affected Jewish identity.”

Meet the Speakers #13: Michael Lynk

Michael Lynk supports the use of “law as a weapon” against alleged Israeli breaches of international law. Lynk previously participated in a conference called “[o]ne State for Palestine/Israel: A country for all its citizens,” where he envisioned details of how a “one-state solution” (meaning the elimination of the state of Israel) would operate. The conference statement claimed that “the Israelis continue to extend the two-state solution discourse primarily to pursue sustained confiscation of Palestinian land and to pressure Palestinians to leave in order to reduce the proportion of Palestinians to Israeli Jews.”

Meet the Speakers #14: Smadar Lavie

Smadar Lavie is a founding member of the The Coalition Against Apartheid in Israeli Anthropology.  Lavie has written that “Israel concurrently continues to plan and execute the socio-cide of both public and intimate spheres of the West Bank and Gaza… reaping the temporary unity of the Jewish victim-turned-warrior nation-state.” She has demonized Israel with rhetoric of “heinous carnage” and “genocide.”

Meet the Speakers #15: Nadim Rouhana

Nadim Rouhana is the head of Mada al-Carmel, an Israeli-Arab NGO that  also helped compose a “statement of a collective vision that Palestinian citizens in Israel articulate about themselves” called the “Haifa Declaration” which refers to the “Zionist… colonial-settler project in Palestine,” calls for the Right of Return, expresses a one-state vision, and accuses Israel of “exploiting” the “tragedy” of the Holocaust “to legitimize the right of the Jews to establish a state at the expense of the Palestinian people”.  Mada el-Carmel is part of the Ittijah coalition which used the rhetoric of “massacre,” “genocide,” and “extermination camp” regarding the Gaza War.

Meet the Speakers #16: Rafeef Ziadah
Rafeef Ziadah – anti-Israel activist based in Toronto, works for SUSTAIN (Stop U.S. Tax-Funded Aid to Israel Now), member of the “Coalition against Israeli Apartheid” which supports BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions), writes for “Electronic Intifada”. Ziadah uses demonizing language that refers to Israel as a “settler-colonial project” with a “system of apartheid”, and participated in the York University Israeli Apartheid Week.

Meet the Speakers #17: Leila Farsakh
Leila Farsakh supports a one state solution and claims that “[t]he area is heading to the abyss of an apartheid state system rather than to a viable two-state solution, let alone peace”. Farsakh also edited a book called “Commemorating the Naksa [term refers to results of the 1967 war] Evoking the Nakba” which claims that “the wall” “signaled the existence of the last apartheid regime of the 21st century” and says that Israel turned “the territories” into “incarceration camps” (Editor’s Note p.8). The book is dedicated to the memory of pro-Palestinian activist Prof. Edward Said.  Frakash is also Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Uriel,

I have no objection to being criticized, just as I expect NGOs and their funders, like NIF, to accept the legitimacy of criticism and the importance of informed public debate on these important issues. However, I do think that your blog item was unfair and inaccurate, and that you seem to be targeting NGO Monitor, beginning with the headline.

The text starts by referring to NGO Monitor as “a pro-Israel watchdog group whose favorite targets are Arab-Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights groups”. This is an ideologically loaded description. Instead, you might have described us as “an Israel-based watchdog group that examines NGOs for bias and inaccuracy in regarding alleged human rights violations”. And regarding “disingenuous (read: inaccurate) elements in Steinberg’s
item”. Disingenuous implies that what you read as a mistaken reference to ongoing NIF funding for ICAHD was placed there deliberately, which you cannot know and which is untrue.

You also did not give the reader a chance to judge the syntax for him/herself (other than linking the item). The text (before the change in syntax) read: “…WILPF – along with Mossawa (also funded by NIF) and ICAHD (funded by the EU until recently),…”. It is a stretch to read this as claiming NIF funding for ICAHD is continuing, and the syntax error may be yours, but the reader would have to open the link to check this. However, to remove any possible misunderstanding, the sentence has been changed. In terms of accuracy, we have demonstrated this – your first email to me claimed that Mossawa was also not funded by NIF, but when I sent you the link to the NIF annual report, you dropped this claim.
On the substance of NIF’s support for NGOs promoting BDS, you refer to “NIF funding rules”, whereas NGO Monitor used the term “funding criteria”, based on Naomi Paiss’s 2006 letter, which states that “NIF has never funded groups
that call for divestment”. In her statement to you, she said: “It’s not something that disqualifies all by itself a grantee from NIF support.” Perhaps it was Paiss who was being disingenuous. You then wrote a pejorative sentence on “Steinberg having to stretch the truth”. Readers can judge for themselves, but I think many will find NGO Monitor’s wording to be an accurate reflection of the evidence.

As I wrote at the beginning of this response to your blog item, I and NGO Monitor accept and learn from criticism, particularly when it is valid. In this case, however, the evidence indicates that your criticism “stretched the truth”.

I look forward to your response, and suggest that you post this on your blog for others to read.
Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg
Executive Director, www.ngo-monitor.org
1 Ben Maimon
Jerusalem, Israel

Accused of “conflat[ing] criticism of the government of Israel with polemic about Israelis and Jews in general” and making a “connection between pre-World War II Jews as victims of the Nazis and present-day Israelis as the oppressors of the Middle East”, the Jewish community of Britain wrote that the play reinforces “false stereotypes” and is “horrifically anti-Israel”.

Such reactions have caused official sources to distance themselves from the play. The BBC refused to air the play because it would “compromise its impartiality” and the city of Liverpool revoked its funding for a festival that included the play after the festival  refused to show a response play called “Seven Other Children” alongside it.

A neglected element of the play is the fact that the rights to the play are free (p.8) to anyone as long as they collect money for the NGO Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP). Most criticism of the play has relied on the content of the play while paying little attention to the politicized NGO that is benefiting from each showing. While Steve James, Chief Executive of MAP, claims that “[w]e don’t take a political view on what’s happening in Palestine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he has blamed Israel for “denying” medical care to Palestinians and MAP’s head of advocacy, Andrea Becker, has referred to the “collective punishment” of Palestinians.

This is just one of the myriad of activities included in CWP’s “10 days against the siege” campaign which so far involved bringing a convoy of contraband to the Erez crossing where CWP claimed it would resort to “digging tunnels” if their items were not passed through the “regular channels”. Another major theme of the campaign is calling for BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) against Israel. CWP is funded by the New Israel Fund.

See NGO Monitor’s Submission to the Human Rights Council Inquiry on the Gaza War, Led by Judge Richard Goldstone, NGO Monitor, June 9, 2009.

See also NGOs dominate Gaza fact-finding commissions, Anne Herzberg, Jerusalem Post, June 08, 2009

Editor
Jerusalem Post

In his eagerness to libel me and NGO Monitor’s research, Larry Garber, CEO of New Israel Fund has again misread the text. (‘Many Narratives, Not Just One’, June 7 2009).

My article on the fictitious narrative that is used by many NGOs to demonize Israel did not endorse the “Nakba Law”. (‘Taking Back the Narrative’, May 30, 2009). I explicitly noted that if had been passed (and the cabinet wisely withdrew it), it would have been nullified as a violation of free speech. The other 700 words of my analysis focused on the narrative wars, in which NIF’s misguided funding plays a key role.

In his diatribe, Mr. Garber chose to ignore the substantive criticism of NIF’s support of blatant anti-Zionist activities under the facade of “civil rights”. For example, NIF gave $125,000 to Mada al-Carmel, an NGO behind the Haifa Declaration, promoting the campaign supporting ‘a change in the definition of the State of Israel from a Jewish State’. And there are many more such NGOs among NIF’s grantees. Disregarding these facts and trashing serious analysis will not help NIF to correct its mistakes or answer donors concerned about the way their funds are used by NGOs who demonize the Jewish state.

Prof Gerald Steinberg

Executive Director – NGO Monitor

An article in the Arab News praised Human Rights Watch for “gaining more recognition and support in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world.” The article notes that “[d]uring their recent visit to the Kingdom, senior members of the organization were given a welcoming dinner in Riyadh hosted by prominent businessman and intellectual Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan. Other prominent members of Saudi society, human rights activists and dignitaries were invited to the dinner held to honor the guests….Al-Hejailan said the credo of human rights is rising in the Kingdom. He commended Human Rights Watch (HRW) for its work on Gaza and the Middle East as a whole.”  Indeed, HRW’s anti-Israel obsession was the major reason for Saudi fundraiser: “The group is facing a shortage of funds because of the global financial crisis and the work on Israel and Gaza, which depleted HRW’s budget for the region.”

The article quotes Sarah Leah Whitson extensively (there is no indication of whether Kenneth Roth, who, as a Jew, would generally be refused entry by the Saudis, was allowed in as part of this benefit for HRW). Whitson is director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa Division, and a major contributor to anti-Israel propaganda using the rhetoric of human rights.

Whitson’s appeal for Saudi support and money cited HRW’s anti-Israel focus extensively, including the claim: “Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets.” NGO Monitor has systematically investigated and exposed HRW false and unsupported claims. In response, Whitson also invoked the canard of “pro-Israel pressure groups” which, she declared, “strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it.”

Similarly, Whitson told the Saudi leaders about HRW’s role in anti- Israel activities in the US Congress and the United Nations, boasting that this propaganda campaign were instrumental in the UN “fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza,” to be headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, who is also a member of HRW’s board.. On this basis alone, Goldstone should resign from both HRW and the UN group.

——————————————————–
Tuesday 26 May 2009 (01 Jumada al-Thani 1430)

HRW lauded for work in Gaza

Nasser Salti | Arab News —

RIYADH: Human Rights Watch is gaining more recognition and support in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world. During their recent visit to the Kingdom, senior members of the organization were given a welcoming dinner in Riyadh hosted by prominent businessman and intellectual Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan.

“Our work involved a lot of travel and expenses for researchers. We are so modest and conservative in running a tight budget of less than $2 million to cover costs and expenses for over 20 researchers working on the Middle East and North Africa,” he said.

“Half of this amount comes from individual donors. We call businessmen in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world to support HRW by sending donations,” said Elmasry, who is also a managing director at Morgan Stanley in London.

“Lawfare” has been a popular NGO tool for political campaigns against Israel since the first UN Durban conference where the NGO Forum solidified the “Durban Strategy” for international isolation and demonization of Israel. This included calls for “war crimes tribunals” to “investigate and bring to justice those who may be guilty of war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the crime of Apartheid which amount to crimes against humanity that have been or continue to be perpetrated in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” Since 2001, NGOs have adopted “Lawfare” as a major element of their mandates and campaigns although thus far no cases have been upheld. (See NGO “Lawfare” Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, NGO Monitor, September 2008).

Spain specifically has some of the most liberal universal jurisdiction laws and has therefore been a target for NGO Lawfare campaigns against Israeli military and political figures. On May 19, 2009, however, Spainish lawmakers voted to change the universal jurisdiction laws to allow only cases where the victim is Spanish or the accused is physically in Spain. (Spain Is Moving to Rein In Its Crusading Judges, Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2009) This would significantly hamper NGO efforts to abuse Spanish courts to bring Israeli officials to court for alleged “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity.”

NGOs are up in arms about the change. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called the move “a step backwards.” HRW added:

“Spain’s law is generous and it became a magnet for victims who did not find justice in their own countries. This amendment is very disappointing,” the spokesman for U.S.-based Reed Brody said in a statement. “There is no excess of universal jurisdiction in the world, there is an excess of impunity,” he said, adding he believed Spain was taking steps to change its law due to diplomatic pressure just like Belgium did in 2003. (Rts Group Blasts Spanish Move To Curb Foreign Judicial Probes, AFP, May 20, 2009)

HRW also claimed:

“The cases brought in Spain are a way of persuading or forcing the courts of others countries to deal with the crimes they are not dealing with at home,” Reed Brody, an international law specialist for Human Rights Watch in Brussels, said by telephone on Wednesday. (Push in Spain to Limit Reach of the Courts, NY Times, May 20, 2009)

Amnesty International responded with disappointment as well:

The move to limit the judges alarmed human-rights campaigners. “There will be more impunity,” Hugo Relva, legal adviser for Amnesty International, said before Tuesday’s vote. (Spain Is Moving to Rein In Its Crusading Judges, Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2009)