HOME Nov-Dec.2008 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web



by Patricia Berlyn



False witnesses and unjust accusers have appeared against me . . . .
— Psalm 27:12

Part I of Blood Libel (Issue No. 70) [ read it here] defined the Blood Libel; the ancient-medieval-modern canard that Jews murder non-Jews, often children, for ritual purposes or driven by sheer evil. It inflicted cruel suffering and mass murders on individual Jews and Jewish communities. Now it is used against the State of Israel; invented with cunning, propagated with malice or ignorance, and given credence by the gullible.

Part II here surveys some of the national and international bodies, organizations, and institutions that use the Blood Libel as a weapon against Israel. It does not include:

[1] states that are at war with Israel — including those that have signed peace treaties or other expressions of non-belligerence — or terrorist entities openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It is to be expected that they will use Blood Libel as a weapon.

[2] Collectivities that have been discussed in previous issues — amongst them The United Nations [UN], the Mainstream News Media [MSM] [see especially Issue No. 13 — "The Fourth Estate"], and Academia [see especially Issue No. 27 — "Scenes From Academe"].

[3] Israeli and other Jewish organizations or collections of signatories who follow some personal anti-Judaic agenda by perpetrating or supporting libels against their own fellows: Among them Peace Now, American Friends of Peace Now, the New Israel Fund [NIF] in the United States and its Israeli foster-child Adalah, Rabbis for Human Rights [RHR]. Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice, and others of their irksome ilk.

Part II does give a sampling of contemporary purveyors of the Blood Libel who, singly or in convoys, sail under the false flags of "promoting peace" and "human rights" and "social justice" and "international humanitarian law" and other misty platitudes. They employ emotive catch-phrases such as "apartheid," "ethnic cleansing," and "racist," because readers are conditioned to shudder at such words. As charges against Israel, the words suffice; no proof is needed. "Human Rights" is a catch-all category used without clear definition much less relevance. "International Humanitarian Law" is imposed without citation or documentation. Occasionally, to establish their objectivity, they issue a bland disapprobation of some Arab-terrorist mass murders of Israeli victims, sometimes with the admonition to the perpetrators that such indiscretions do not advance their worthy cause.

Some of the more generous practitioners may permit Israelis a limited right to self-defense, but only on condition that they not endanger or even inconvenience "innocent civilians" within a terrorist entity — even when those "innocent civilians" are willing human shields for terrorist missile-launchers. [This nicety is advocated even by those nations who imposed no such inhibitions on themselves when they fought to defend their own lands and people.]

This category of Blood Libel includes Blood Libel by Omission. For example: Indignation that "Palestinians" traveling to some locations in Israel have to go through security checkpoints dismisses or ignores the reason for the caution; that such travelers often smuggle weapons or explosives to be used against Israelis, or hurl acid into the faces of the Israeli soldiers trying to facilitate their passage.

Oppression, suppression, tyranny, massacre by other governments in other nations equals "ho-hum". The spotlight of indignation turned on Israel makes it the prime villain, while the crimes committed against it are downplayed, ignored, or even justified.

A bizarre current incarnation of the Blood Libel is that Israel does not fulfill its "humanitarian responsibilities" to adjacent terrorist-entities dedicated to killing Jews and annihilating Israel. In Gaza, that has for several years past been totally judenrein and free of any Israeli control, those busily loading the missiles to be fired into Israeli towns must be supplied with money, food, medical care, fuel, electricity, and other privileges. Even more bizarre is that the government of Israel actually does supply these services, even while under fire from the recipients of the largesse. Nevertheless, it is asserted that poverty and unemployment in Gaza are caused by Israel's entirely defensive "restrictions" and "blockade."



but cannot extricate themselves from their antique Judeophobia. European governments, individually or collectively through the EU, are sugar-daddy to the Blood Libel industry by way of hyper-generous grants to the PLO, including funds for school textbooks that are anthologies of Judeophobic lies, and to anti-Jewish groups whose members are themselves nominally Jewish.

For example:



These are self-sanctified private institutions, many of them large and rich, that enjoy high prestige and wield great influence, while never accountable to an electorate nor anyone else save their devoted donors. They operate behind a facade of eleemosynary intent, earnestness, and good intentions. Thereby, their words carry credence even when the content is unreliable, slanted, tendentious, and even downright deceitful. They enjoy a spurious respectability, so their reports, studies, and proclamations are often mistaken for honest and reliable, so well-meant views and policies are based on tainted sources.

Some of the most prominent and influential NGOs are noxiously obsessed with pressing false charges against Israel, but show little if any concern about Arab aggressions and terrorism, or about real oppression and real suffering in other parts of the world — perhaps because they have not yet found a way to blame the anguish of Darfur or the plight of Tibet on the Jews. The American Friends Service Committee and Oxfam are typical examples of this variety of Professional Humanitarians.

Self-appointed guardians of Human Rights promote their favored causes by denying Israel the basic Human Right not to be libeled and misrepresented. They do so in the comfortable assurance that they risk no retaliation, no threats, and often not even an official rebuttal. That is much easier for the NGOs than taking note of peccadilloes of more touchy actors on the world stage.

Professor Gerald Steinberg on his site NGO Monitor [] provides much revealing information on this species:

"This detailed research documents the degree to which EU-funded political NGOs contribute to the conflict and advance particular political agendas. Many of these EU-funded groups participated in the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference, and their reports and campaigns repeatedly refer to Israel as a 'colonial entity,' and 'racist and apartheid state,' while promoting boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Some EU-funded NGOs also consistently advocate the Arab or Palestinian narrative of the conflict, erase the context of Palestinian terrorism, falsely accusing Israel of 'war crimes' and seek to undermine Israel's Jewish identity. Although EU funding formally goes to projects and not to the NGOs, per se, this distinction is artificial. 'Project funding' can be used for general NGO activities and campaigns, travel and publicity to promote the ideologies and interests of offcials. EU logos appear regularly on anti-Israel publications issued by these NGOs, providing the image of legitimacy. [....]"

Among the most prominent, influential, and irresponsible NGOs in this field are Human Rights Watch [HRW] and Amnesty International [AI].


Professor Steinberg examined the conduct of HRW during Lebanon War II in 2006, as illustrative and typical of how it and similar NGOs work:

"[....] During and after the war . . . [Kenneth] Roth and Human Rights Watch, which he heads, were central in the political assault on Israel, publishing 30 statements, op-eds, and reports — almost all condemning the Israeli response to Hezbollah's aggression . . . 'war crimes,' 'indiscriminate attacks against civilians,' 'disproportionate force,' 'violation of international law,' etc.

"HRW generally published these charges without any verifiable evidence, basing them on Hezbollah propaganda, and giving legitimacy to false claims from so-called eyewitnesses. This was the case in HRW's claim that over 50 civilians were killed in Qana — the number was later reduced by half and some or perhaps many were Hezbollah personnel; and in HRW's claims that Israel killed some 42 civilians in Srifa — when it turns out that only half that number were killed and almost all were Hezbollah fighters. And, as documented in detail by NGO Monitor, there are many other unsupported allegations, while, in parallel, Roth and HRW largely ignored the real human rights issues - such as Hezbollah's extensive use of human shields and its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. [....]

"[....]Anyone reading HRW's reports will see that most of the sources cited for the number of Lebanese civilians are Hezbollah's assertions. [....] And Roth's frequent references to the "laws of war," which he claims were violated repeatedly by the IDF, are his own arbitrary interpretations, based on and filtered through personal agendas. [....]"

As Professor Steinberg points out, "the damage done to Israel by the sloppy and dishonest HRW cannot be undone."


Even when Amnesty International steps out of character to disapprove of such doings as the massacre of eight Israeli yeshiva students, it demands that Israel not make any response against terrorism that involves what AI regards as " being carried out with reckless disregard for civilian life."

Never mind that not carrying them out is reckless disregard for the lives of its own civilians. The life being disregarded is that of Israelis living within range of Gaza, with AI and its fellow-cranks in effect telling them: "Let yourselves be murdered, and we will say tut-tut. Decline to be murdered with impunity and incur our righteous contempt. "

Professor Steinberg advises AI: "Resign over bias and abuse of Holocaust terminology", NGO Monitor, 4 June 2007:

"Amnesty International (AI) today issued a report entitled 'Enduring Occupation: Palestinians under siege in the West Bank,' which provides more evidence of AI's strong political agenda on Arab-Israeli issues. This report also reinforces the unjustified boycott campaigns that delegitimize Israel and the right of self-defense. By participating in this campaign, the members of Amnesty International, including the Israeli branch, undermine the basis of universal human rights.

"Previous NGO Monitor reports have noted the prevalence of one-sided attacks on Israel from AI, and the organization's latest publication confirms this long-standing bias. 'Enduring Occupation' begins by placing full responsibility for the conflict on Israel, with minimal reference to Palestinian terror. The emotive language employed in the report is more appropriate for a propaganda communique, such as the highly charged opening implication that Israel deliberately kills Palestinian children, and the coarse abuse of Holocaust terminology, such as 'Wall of Death.' Once again, Amnesty has invented and ignored evidence in order to demonize Israel.

"The report also falsely implies that Israel arbitrarily imposes restrictions on Palestinians, commits 'war crimes,' and calls for Israelis to be prosecuted in the world's courts. AI's report barely acknowledges Palestinian terror and the extensive support it receives from neighboring regimes. Nor is there substantial recognition of Israel's right, according to international law, to defend itself against such terror. [. . . .]"




It publicly laments that "measures imposed by Israel had denied the Palestinian population the right to live a normal and dignified life." This is the same ICRC that always shirks its duty to Israeli prisoners-of-war and abducted hostages. It has even gone so far as to register a complaint when Israeli forces rescued the passengers of a hijacked airliner and thereby disrupted the ICRC's negotiations with the hijackers. For many years it refused to admit the Israeli Magen-Daveed Adom [Red Shield of David] to associate membership equal to those of the Muslim Red Crescent and the Russian Red Star. When it finally reluctantly gave in on this, Israel alone of all members and associate members was forbidden to use its own national symbol of the Shield of David, that the ICRC director compared to a swastika.


PHR is in the forefront of the libel of Israel. It is so dedicated to this pursuit that it published an eight-page full-color comic book with caricatures of vicious Israeli soldiers oppressing and abusing helpless Palestinians and refusing them medical care. It also lent itself to the Jenin Massacre hoax, in which Israel was convicted of an alleged atrocity that never took place.

Among its other canards, PHR recently wailed that a resident of Gaza died because the Jews insisted on a security check before admitting him to Israel for medical treatment. Is PHR relieved or disappointed that the man they named as the victim is indeed alive?

The truth that does not fit the PHR agenda is that Israel regularly provides medical treatment to patients admitted from Hamas-ruled Gaza as well as from PLO-land — regardless of past experience with (1) patients who arrive at Israel hospitals outfitted with bomb-belts to kill those who tend them, (2) ambulances found to be transporting terrorists and their instruments of death, (3) Arab patients in Israeli hospitals who cheer the arrival of Jewish victims of terrorist attacks.


It has long been a practice in the United States for conspicuously prosperous individuals and families to endow charitable and/or cultural foundations. Thereby, they can win valuable tax exemptions, honor their own names, get directorships for their relatives, and support noble enterprises on behalf of mankind.

Foundation funds are often well-used, but occasionally ill-used. Especially prominent in the latter class is the richly-endowed Ford Foundation, that perpetuates various legacies of automobile-maker Henry Ford.

Recent beneficiaries of Ford Foundation largesse include: The United Nations World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, the thus far broadest and most hysterical of anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-Jews hate-fests. After The Ford Foundation incurred some unwonted publicity for paying the bills at Durban, it declared that it will not in the future give money to "promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities." How this pledge will be enforced remains to be seen.

In the meantime, Ford still funds numerous "Palestinian" and international groups that pursue anti-Israel programs under the alias of "Human Rights".

Henry Ford, who was successfully sued for group-libel via his publication and promotion of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would be proud.


"Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so."
— Mark Twain


The Truth Is Revealed But Still Concealed

Since September 2000, France 2 Television has been perpetrating a Blood Libel in direct descent from its medieval ancestry, in the form of a film-report purporting to show Israeli soldiers shooting to death a cowering twelve-year-old Arab boy. Expert technical analyses proving that no Israeli gunfire could have reached the "victim" was an inconvenient truth conveniently ignored.

The global news media virtually drooled at such a chance to blare a story that would inculcate contempt for Israel — in contrast to their minimal notice of calculated terrorist murders of Israeli babies and children.

The story was especially welcome in Europe, exploited to justify its pre-existing Judeophobia and erase its own guilt. [A European comment: "At last, we can forget that picture of the Jewish boy . . . " — meaning the much-reproduced photograph of a very small Jewish boy surrendering to German Storm Troopers.]

Charles Enderlin, the reporter who broadcast and distributed the story, filed a libel suit against Philippe Karsenty, who had revealed that it was a hoax, and thus unwittingly brought the facts to light. A long trial of his case in a French court produced the evidence that beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt the picture and the report were indeed a hoax — a production of what has been dubbed Pallywood.

This Blood Libel did incalculable damage to Israel's good name. It was invoked as justification for terrorist murders of Jews to "avenge" little Muhammad. It could not have succeeded so well and caused so much harm, without the help of the new media that were uncritical of the story and thus incompetent at their job.

The revelations of the Enderlin-Karsenty trial made a story that might seem a natural for journalistic coverage. Why then has it been so little noted and little reported? Why are some journalists, including French and Israeli, annoyed and distressed that the truth has at last come out?

These are, of course, rhetorical questions.  


is the current equally libelous charge that Israeli communities take water that rightfully belongs to the "Palestinians" and in exchange sloshes its sewage upon them.

British journalist Johann Hari disseminated this lie despite a study by the joint Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian Friends of the Earth (FoEME) that documents the exact opposite: The failure of Palestinian communities to manage its wastes and sewage is polluting the water sources of the region, to Israel's detriment, and those communities have even rejected an Israeli offer of technical assistance with this problem.

Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority's irresponsible and in places illegal drilling of hundreds of wells both violate agreements with Israel and endanger the water table in the region with long-time irreversible harm to the region.  


is not stuck in the Middle Ages. She produces an up-to-date Blood Libel.

In 2005 she opined that "Israel is the major cause of division and violence in the world." In 2007 she charged that "Israel undermines the international community's reaction to global warming."

There is no valid scientific evidence for "global warming" at this time. If and when climate changes, one way or the other, it is caused by changes in solar radiation. Whether or not Short believes that the Jews control the sun, she does not waste a chance at Judeophobic exploitation of a sham alarm.


Patricia Berlyn is a writer and editor who is a native of New York, N.Y. and now resides in Israel.

This article is archived in Vol. VIII:2 (No. 71) of TIME TO SPEAK, September 2008 — Av-Ellul 5768

"A Time To Speak" appears once a month, and each issue is on a theme that relates to Israel and the Middle East past and present, including history, background, current events, analysis and comment. All issues appear on its website: A complimentary subscription to the e-mail edition is available by request to:


Return_________________________End of Story___________________________Return

HOME Nov-Dec.2008 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web