Much has been said about Afghanistan and the difficulty of running it. Western nations should must at least be credited with trying. They invested billions of dollars in development, in institutions, in humanitarian aid, and in education so that the day the western presence ended, it would be a functioning state. Sound familiar?

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The phenomenon of the west pouring money into "building the institutions of democracy," "human rights," and "humanitarian aid," without putting processes in place, is not unique to Afghanistan. Iraq, the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority are all excellent examples of how dependence on the west, with predictable results, is created. In all these places, money was poured into building nations with any understanding of their unique characteristics, limitations, realities, and the ramifications for the day that same future state will need to establish and maintain itself without help from outside.

According to a probe by the NGO Monitor research institute, the European Union and governments of Europe have invested half a billion euros a year in promoting rights, building democratic institutions, and providing humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The Americans spent even more. Everything collapsed in the space of 72 hours.

This is not merely a lack of understanding or how to withdraw forces gradually and wisely. There is more than a little irresponsibility here, a lack of transparency and oversight – common in the aid industry, many of whose players have long since abandoned the principles of neutrality, promoting universal values and independence from political interests. The same phenomenon exists on the donor side, especially in governmental funding systems. The money is colored by interests, and generally there is no way of finding out how decisions were taken to fund one organization or another, even though the negative results are often a foregone conclusion.

In the anarchy of the international system, the principle is a simple one. The longer the dependence of the beneficiary on the benefactor continues, the greater the chance that cutting off that connection without proper planning will lead to a deep crisis. This is true for the Americans' long presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the billions poured into the Palestinian Authority without any oversight, and the aid money to Hamas in Gaza. And this brings us to the main question – what is the correct way to build institutions in a future independent state, in a way that won't in with terrorism and tragedy?

Without getting into the question about whether the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state within some borders or others, we need to take into account the model of Afghanistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, and Gaza – and probably Judea and Samaria, as well. It will take a new kind of thinking to prevent this scenario, one that first of all addresses the essential questions: Who are the extremist actors? What is the societal structure? And most importantly – how strong is the desire of the elites with various interests to establish an independent political entity that won't pose a threat to those around it?

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Afghanistan is here appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Europeans and the organizations they fund have never labeled products from any of the world's other disputed areas, such as northern Cyprus, Western Sahara and dozens others, while EU member states even transfer money to and invest in these places. Every inquiry into other conflicts, unlike the Arab-Israeli conflict, has ended in the rejection of the idea to mark certain products.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

This is because the European Court of Justice has direct links to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. This is more than a "classification" – all boycotts begin by singling out those designated to be ostracized. Proof of this can be found in the series of measures that have been implemented by EU-funded organizations, which have always argued that marking goods is merely the start of an evolving boycott campaign – with clear and intended ramifications for the Israeli economy inside the Green Line.

A study conducted by Israeli group NGO monitor points to a broad coalition of rights groups working to carry out an ideology of boycotting through product labeling. As early as 2012, for example, the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation asked for EU funding to "precisely mark settlement products as a first step," and suggested intensifying the sanctions until "the complete prohibition of settlement imports… and the prohibition of money transfers to settlements and related activities." The code-speak "related activities," incidentally, also includes Israeli and international business initiatives that have nothing to do with the settlements.

This strategy is aptly expressed by the "Platform of French NGOs for Palestine" – an umbrella organization of 40 NGOs in France. Immediately following the French government's decision to adopt the European Commission's recommendation in 2015 to label settlement products, the "Platform" rushed to demand credit for the measure. In other words, the organization appropriated the European Court of Justice's ruling and is one of the leading BDS organizations in France.

Although the Platform claims its campaigns "aren't part of the boycott movement," its president, Claude Léostic, said in an interview that "we certainly support it." In a report that Léostic and other boycott groups published in June 2018, they call on French companies such as Egis, Systra and Alstom to "terminate their contracts with the Israeli authorities" and urge the French government to "take all the measures needed" to prevent French public operators SNCF, RATP and CDC from fulfilling their contracts with the Jerusalem tramway.

Another boycott group working alongside the Platform is the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). Together, they established the "created illegally" campaign in France, which calls on the French government to sever its economic ties with the "Israeli settlements" and any business with connections to them. The campaign's demands include prohibiting the import of products from these communities to France, convincing French companies "not to invest in the settlements," and providing information to tourists in order to "ensure they avoid supporting local companies or tourist sites in the settlements."

The innocuous rhetoric is meant to divert the discussion from its true goal: A complete boycott of Israel, sans actual effort to promote co-existence or human rights in the region. Indeed, these measures will also hurt Palestinians trying to make a living, but a senior EU official justified the initiatives by saying the Europeans "regret it, but need to look at the wider picture."

When the EU decided in 2015 to recommend labeling Israeli products from Judea and Samaria, the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, the EU's ambassador to Israel at the time said the move was "just a technical matter." Two days ago, the current EU ambassador to Israel said the European Court of Justice's ruling reflects "parts of the EU's consumer policy."

We must ask, are assisting and funding boycott campaigns against Israel, harming Palestinian employment, discriminating on the basis of nationality and seeking to return the Golan Heights to terrorist groups in control of what was once Syria – also technical matters and part of the EU's consumer culture?

The post Paving the way to total boycott appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A number of large organizations have had to fight accusations of sexual harassment, employee harassment and the mismanagement of donor funds.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

On Monday, a confidential report by the United Nations Ethics Committee was leaked to the media and with it the panel's recommendations to censure the head of the notorious United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) for "abusing their authority for their own benefit, suppressing legitimate internal opposition, and achieving personal goals in inappropriate ways," as well as for misusing the funds raised for humanitarian aid.

For decades, the human rights industry has touted a halo that over the years became a defensive wall against any criticism from home and abroad.

The senior officials in these organizations were automatically perceived as angels and anyone who dared to criticize or call for reforms in major international organizations, such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, was blasted for trying to undermine their good work.

But the immunity enjoyed by these bodies soon became destructive to the very human rights they are sworn to protect. Professionals have been replaced by extreme political activists; rights campaigns and aid projects gave way to media campaigns; entire populations have been excluded from the focus of these organizations, and the concept of human rights as a universal value soon dissolved into political interests.

A year ago the world learned that Oxfam, one of the largest international aid organizations, compiled a confidential internal report documenting how senior Oxfam officials exploited their status to operate a prostitution network abusing underage earthquake survivors.

The report was kept from Oxfam's donors – especially donor countries - so as not to damage its reputation. Oxfam, by the way, was very vocal in its demand for an international boycott of Israel's SodaStream over its "immoral" operations in Judea and Samaria.

Amnesty, which refuses to deal with anti-Semitism in Europe and which is obsessed with Israel, is currently at the center of a serious case of employee abuse that is so severe,  two of its employees have committed suicide.

In this case, as in the cases of UNRWA and Oxfam, the investigation was conducted secretly and far from the eyes of the donors and the public, so as to avoid tarnishing the organization's reputation.

Irresponsibility, lack of transparency and lack of oversight are common in the human rights and international aid industry, where many groups have long abandoned the principles of neutrality, promoting universal values and independence from political interests.

The cases of UNRWA, Oxfam, Amnesty, and many other groups underscore the claim that in these types of organizations ideology trumps ethics, proper management and values that they have pledged to promote.

By the way, it seems that the Swiss government has decided to suspend its funding for UNRWA – allegations of financial mismanagement were apparently successful where proof of anti-Semitism, support for terrorism, and the indoctrination of hatred via education failed.

The same phenomenon exists on the donor side as well, especially in foreign governments. The funds are tainted by ulterior motives, and it is not always possible to know how appropriation decisions were made.

One must remember that human rights and humanitarian aid organizations are ordinary organizations, and their employees are human beings who are not necessarily more – or less – moral than others. It is precisely because of their pretense of being morally superior that they must face scrutiny and thereby protect human rights values from political abuse.

Such organizations must be completely transparent. If they have been able to hide sex and embezzlement scandals from governments and countries, one can only imagine what they might be hiding with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other issues.

The post What are human rights groups hiding? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In 1994, at the behest of Yasser Arafat and in coordination with him, the TIPH mandate was created and implemented. With the years, TIPH's stated mission of protecting human rights was exposed as a cover for its political role. Norway, TIPH's chief coordinator and the first country to send observers, is a prime example. In conjunction with Great Britain and the European Union, Norway funds a mechanism for the submission of thousands of anti-Israel petitions, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority, to flood the court system and apply international pressure on Israel. It does this through the Norway Refugee Council, an NGO with an Israeli humanitarian visa that allows it to recruit and train TIPH observers. These observers, who serve in a supposedly neutral body, are recruited by a patently anti-Israel organization.

Norwegian involvement doesn't end there. TIPH's main partners in Hebron are activists from another NGO, the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel, who enter Israel under the guise of tourists, document IDF soldiers in action and return to their home countries to spearhead anti-Israel campaigns. The primary church group that coordinates EAPPI's activities in Israel and across the globe is none other than Norwegian Church Aid, which is also operated and funded by the Norwegian government. In general, a litany of reports has shown that church-affiliated activists and organizations that are involved in anti-Israel activity are also involved in the TIPH mission and the EAPPI.

The other TIPH member countries also play a problematic political role and often violate certain clauses of the Oslo Accords. Italy and organizations operating on its behalf partake in illegal construction in Area C in Judea and Samaria; Sweden and Switzerland fund political organizations that violate the Oslo Accords and promote Palestinian rejectionism at The Hague; and Turkey has spread its tentacles to east Jerusalem, often with funding by pro-terrorist elements.

The politicization of TIPH has rendered it ineffective, if not outright incendiary. Hebron, one of the flashpoints of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is also fertile ground for the well-funded industry of anti-Israel activity that provides jobs under the guise of "human rights and international law." The city is the focus of numerous organizations, tourists in disguise, diplomats in their own minds and, until recently, TIPH observers. The cancellation of the TIPH mandate is a signal to governments and organizations: Choose human rights and humanitarian aid or the cynical politicization of these principles, which only amplifies friction between the sides.

The post Politicizing human rights in Hebron appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.