Israelis and others bought undocumented diamonds

One of the latest cables released by Wikileaks reveals an illicit trade in Zimbabwean diamonds. The cable, dated 12th November, 2008 states in summary:

The CEO of a British mining company described to us how high-ranking Zimbabwean government officials and well-connected elites are generating millions of dollars in personal income by hiring teams of diggers to hand-extract diamonds from the Chiadzwa mine in eastern Zimbabwe. They are selling the undocumented diamonds to a mix of foreign buyers including Belgians, Israelis, Lebanese, Russians and South Africans who smuggle them out of the country for cutting and resale elsewhere. Despite efforts to control the diamond site with police, the prospect of accessible diamonds lying just beneath the soil’s surface has attracted a swarm of several thousand local and foreign diggers. The police response has been violent, with a handful of homicides reported each week, though that number could grow as diggers arm themselves and attract police and army deserters to their ranks.

Further, the cable says:

¶7. (C) The diamonds that are not sold to regime members and elites, but instead are sold directly to foreign buyers, actually constitute the majority of the diamond trade in Chiadzwa. Cranswick said that around 85 percent of the diamonds extracted from Chiadzwa are sold directly to foreign buyers. Even so, he conservatively estimated that Mujuru, Gono and the rest were probably each making several hundred thousand dollars a month.

¶8. (C) Whether bought first by regime members or not, eventually the diamonds are sold to a mix of Belgians, Israelis, Lebanese (the largest contingent), Russians, and South Africans. A well-known buyer named Gonyeti fronts for Gono, as do two other buyers named Tendai Makurumidze and Takunda Nyaguze, according to Mutasa. Once sold to foreigners, the majority of the diamonds are smuggled to Dubai and sold at the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre Authority, a dedicated economic free-trade zone created in 2002 for the exchange of metals and commodities, most notably gold and diamonds. Although Zimbabwe is a participant in the Kimberley process, the diamonds from Chiadzwa are undocumented and therefore are not in compliance with Kimberley, which requires loose uncut diamonds to be certified.

¶9. (C) The highest quality diamonds are not sent to Dubai, but are shipped to Belgium, Israel, or South Africa for cutting. Despite this wide dispersal, Chiadzwa diamonds are very distinctive because of their age, color, and clarity and can easily be traced back to the Marange mine, according to Cranswick. He implicated Ernie Blom, president of South Africa’s Diamond Merchants Association in the illicit trade of Chiadzwa diamonds, and said that Blom had been known to boast of his involvement in illegal Zimbabwean diamonds. When asked why purportedly reputable diamond dealers would involve themselves in Chiadzwa, Cranswick said that the site was “massive” with tremendous profit potential that was attracting numerous buyers. One such group consisted of Russians who had recently bought US$500,000 worth of diamonds at an MMCZ auction, paying US$29/carat. They bought eight to ten carat rough diamonds, five to ten percent of which were gem quality.

¶10. (C) The diamond frenzy in Chiadzwa has led to hundreds and possibly thousands of homicides. Word of easy diamonds spurred a rush of Zimbabwean and foreign diggers to the area including Angolans, Congolese, Mozambicans, South Africans and Zambians, as well as diggers from as far away as Sierra

Yesterday a Swiss group urged Bern to bar sale of Marange diamonds from Zimbabwe.

The organization said the definition of “blood diamonds” used by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme should be updated to include human rights violations by forces of the state. The present definition refers to rebel forces, a loophole that has allowed Harare to market Marange diamonds internationally under Kimberley supervision.

The Zimbabwe Advocacy Office, local partner of Bread For All, reports ongoing rights violations in the Marange diamond field of Manicaland province.

Diamonds from Marange are currently barred from export until the Kimberly Process has achieved a consensus on the disposition of the Zimbabwean stones. The organization met in Israel last month but was unable to reach a consensus on Marange gems.

Zimbabwean Mines Minister Obert Mpofu has threatened to sell diamonds with or without Kimberley approval, saying Zimbabwe has met all of the group’s requirements.

But political analyst Charles Mangongera said Harare must first address human rights abuses in Marange and completely demilitarize the zone, among other outstanding items in a work plan to which it agreed at a 2009 Kimberley Process meeting.

Israel is currently chairs the Kimberley Process. A boycott of Israeli cut diamonds has been called as Israeli diamonds cannot be regarded as conflict-free while Israel maintains its illegal apartheid, crimes against humanity, occupation and brutalisation of the people of Palestine.

Most people are unaware that the majority of diamonds on display in Jewellers’ windows are likely to have been manufactured in apartheid Israel and that their purchase helps to fund Israel’s illegal occupation and Zionist crimes against humanity. Israeli diamonds are de facto Blood Diamonds.

Significant revenues from corporation and personal taxes accrue to the Israeli state form the diamond industry each year. This helps to fund the 60 year long illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and associated crimes including murder, ethnic cleansing, home demolitions, destruction and theft of land and collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

Boycott Israeli Diamonds

The UN-based Kimberley Process which seeks to eliminate the trade in diamonds from conflict zones only applies to uncut or rough diamonds. It does not control to trade in polished diamonds from conflict zones. This has allowed jewellers to continue selling Israeli diamonds, conveniently ignoring the war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by Israel, the world’s No1 producer of cut and polished diamonds.

Consumers and jewellers presently have no way of distinguishing which diamonds are cut and polished in Israeli and which are crafted in countries that respect human rights and international law. Consumers have a right to know not only where the diamond was mined (as certified by the Kimberley Process) but also the country where it was cut and polished.

The Indian government has placed a ban on Zimbabwean diamonds.

The Indian Government’s Union Ministry of Commerce has moved to stop its country from importing controversial diamonds from Zimbabwe, amid growing pressure for international traders to shun stones from the country. Indian has asked jewellery exporters and traders to bide their time until a solution of Zimbabwe’s trade future is resolved. Currently Zimbabwe’s diamonds are still effectively barred from international trade, because the watchdog Kimberley Process (KP) is still to decide on whether to give Zimbabwean exports the green light.

The Indian government’s decision is a major setback to the country’s diamond conglomerate, the Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing India Limited (SRSDIL), which signed a deal amounting to US$1.2 billion per year, to import rough diamonds from Zimbabwe. Recent diamond auctions in Zimbabwe, the first since the country was barred from trade last year, saw a high number of Indian buyers. Zimbabwe was barred by the KP over human rights abuses at the Chiadzwa alluvial diamond fields, and the auctions earlier this year were part of efforts to bring the country in line with international standards. But the KP has not made a unanimous decision on Zimbabwe yet, because of ongoing reports of abuses at Chiadzwa.

The Mines Ministry has since threatened to sell its diamonds without KP approval and recently the KP appointed monitor to Zimbabwe, Abbey Chikane, unilaterally certified Chiadzwa stones for sale. As a result, another auction, featuring mainly Indian buyers, went ahead last month. The KP has since publicly dismissed Chikane’s efforts to certify the stones without approval, and has asked member state not accepted Zimbabwean diamonds.

The KP is still reportedly negotiating an agreement with the Mines Ministry, which continues to make it clear that it has no intention of adhering to the KP’s limits. Mines and Mining Development secretary Thankful Musukutwa reportedly told a visiting Norwegian delegation this week that trade would not be stopped by NGOs and “other hostile nations.” Musukutwa said that while Zimbabwe has had “a few problems” with the KP, “we have worked our way up and we are very compliant.”

A Kimberley Process meeting in Israel in November failed to allow the export of Zimbabwean diamonds until they become process-compliant.

Talks to break an international deadlock over Zimbabwe’s suspended diamond exports ended in Belgium last week without a deal as the market was awash with rumours that Harare was courting buyers for stones from its controversial fields to the east of the country.

Industry representatives failed to hammer a compromise deal after a special meeting of the Kimberley Process (KP)’s Working Group on Monitoring (WGM) ended in Brussels on Thursday with no consensus on whether to allow rough diamond exports from Zimbabwe.

The Brussels meeting followed a KP plenary session held earlier this month in Israel which nearly reached an agreement after direct consultations between the United States and Zimbabwe. The agreement was widely accepted by KP members but was blocked by Canada and Australia. The Tel Aviv meetings ended with a decision to continue negotiations until a unanimous agreement is reached.

Zimbabwe boycotted the WGM meeting although it was said to be liaising with the working group via a delegation from neighbouring countries. Harare has insisted that it would resume selling the gems “without any conditions”. Under a set of measures meant to bring Zimbabwe’s controversial diamond industry in line with KP standards, the world diamond industry must monitor production and sales of diamonds from Chiadzwa field where the army has been accused of rights abuses against civilians.

In a later cable of the 9th January, 2009, we see:

¶7. (C) While Gono’s access to diamonds may have been compromised, XXXXXXXXXXXX said that many diamonds are still being sold to foreign diamond buyers in Mutare and over the border in Mozambique by a mix of panners, police, and soldiers. In particular, Lebanese buyers have set up shop in large numbers in Mutare and typically pay for the diamonds with U.S. dollars. In order to operate safely, the Lebanese have formed profitable relationships with senior military and police officials in the region. Marginally more reputable buyers from Europe and other regions prefer to stay in Chimoio in Mozambique. Chimoio affords these buyers protection from Zimbabwean police and soldiers who commonly seize cash, diamonds, and vehicles from them in Mutare, but that safety is offset by higher diamond prices.

Ask where your diamond was cut and sourced before buying – don’t buy Israeli blood diamonds.

Related Links
Court asked to prevent Chiadzwa diamond exports
CORE MINING EXEC. CLAIMS $80 MILLION OF ROUGH DIAMONDS MISSING FROM CANADILE STOCK
Zimbabwe Finance Minister Calls for Valuation of Diamond Deposits
Zimbabwe Govt Newspaper: Diamond Mining Company Contests Exclusion From Chiadzwa

Dissent against authoritarianism – an Australian tradition

Australians’ rebellious, spontaneous actions against authority are legion – the Vinegar Hill Irish insurrection at Castle Hill in 1804, the 1808 Rum Rebellion, Eureka stockade in 1854, the retaliations of Ben Hall and Ned Kelly, the 1899 Boer war where Australian officials actively questioned the authority of the Crown, Keith Murdoch’s whistleblowing of the British manipulations of our troops in Gallipoli contributing to rejection of conscription in 1916 and 1917, rejection of Menzies’ 1951 bill to ban communism, major demonstrations against the Vietnam war, Joh Bjelke Petersen’s anti-street march and emergency legislation laws, Gulf Wars 1 and 2, the war in Afghanistan and Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, mandatory detention of refugees, for Aboriginal land rights and numerous other protests.

In this tradition, the people of Australia will rise up tomorrow in most capital cities in defence of freedom of the press and the people’s right to know, and in support of incarcerated Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

One of the speakers at the event in Sydney tomorrow will be journalist Antony Loewenstein who says:

“I think this is a free speech issue. I think it’s an important question more journalists should be working on. The truth is, that a number of journalists, corporate journalists in Australia and elsewhere have shown their true colours,”

Watch today’s Brisbane Wikileaks rally live on 4ZZZ UStream.

George Brandis, Andrew Wilkie and Bob Brown along with an impressive list of prominent Australians and luminaries. have expressed support for Australians, Australia and Wikileaks.

Affirming consular assistance for Julian Assange and unlike the PM not decrying Wikileaks as illegal, Kevin Rudd has exonerated Wikileaks from blame for the release of the cables.

“Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network,” said Mr Rudd, who had been criticised in one leaked cable as a “control freak”.

“The Americans are responsible for that.”

Gillard does not – our Mrs. Grundy is revealed:

Julia Gillard has also stated that Mr Assange acted illegally in publishing the cables.

Mr Assange’s British solicitor, Mark Stephens, told The Australian that his legal team were examining the Prime Minister’s comments and considering a defamation action against her.

Ms Gillard yesterday refused to specify what laws Mr Assange might have broken. “The foundation stone of it is an illegal act,” Ms Gillard said.

“Information was taken and that was illegal, so let’s not try and put any glosses on this.”

The comments drew fire from the opposition, with shadow attorney-general George Brandis describing the remarks as “clumsy”.

“As far as I can see he (Mr Assange) hasn’t broken any Australian law,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.

“Nor does it appear he has broken any American laws.”

Since her installation, Gillard has shown herself to be remarkably pliable to US strategic plans – assenting to a substantial increase in joint exercises, US troop numbers and logistics in Australia and continuing the government’s plan to purchase F35s from the US.

It is useful to be aware of the comparative military strength and budget of China and the US. When there is such US disproportionate strength, why contribute without serious question to the upscaling madness in association with an imperial power which does not submit to international law? Beware the stagnant mercantilist imperative which feeds on militarisation and feathers the nest of mining and defence companies.

Today’s Wikilinks
Wikileaks Mass Mirror Party Cartoon
Mark Arbib, aka CIA Agent 007
Thousands rally to defend Bradley Manning
Exclusive: Sarah Palin Under Cyber-Attack from Wikileaks Supporters in ‘Operation Payback’
DataCell ehf who facilitates those payments towards Wikileaks has decided to take up immediate legal actions to make donations possible again.
Why WikiLeaks Is Winning Its Info War
Another view of Wikileaks madness
On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses
Why WikiLeaks Is Winning Its Info War
Obama vs Assange Cartoon
MasterCard and Visa want to play politics, then game on…
Berkeley City Council May Declare Support For Alleged WikiLeaks Informant
Is Julian Assange Helping the Neocons?
Noose Closes Around Pro-Wikileaks Vigilantes
Attacks on credit card sites a grass-roots effort
Caving to pressure from supporters, PayPal releases WikiLeaks’ funds
Assange accuser may have ceased co-operating
The charges – two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of rape
The Rape of Julian Assange
From Jefferson to Assange (some Americans think Assange is one of them!
Wikileaks keeps on publishing despite arrest (funny vid)
Origin of the latest Israel is behind it conspiracy theory (written by an Israeli)
‘The Only Option Left for Me Is an Orderly Departure’ – interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg
Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks’ Assange
Understanding Wikileaks’ ally Anonymous
WikiLeaks Defector Plans Tell-All Book
Meet The New Public Face Of WikiLeaks: Kristinn Hrafnsson
The Empire Is Collapsing, And Americans Will Be The Last To Know
Petition – Wikileaks: Stop the crackdown
Non-governmental organizations should consider nominating Julian Assange for a Nobel Prize, a source in the Russian presidential administration has said.
WikiLeaks followers close Swedish government site: report
Anon Ops – A Manifesto
Is the Wikileaks we see the Wikileaks we need?
Mum’s plea: bring Julian home
Julian Assange rape allegations: treatment of women ‘unfair and absurd
Tell me what a rapist looks like
Today’s Australian Wikilinks

US diplomats monitored the progress of Gillard
Andrew Wilkie on WikiLeaks’ Rudd revelations
Arbib not a spy: Shorten
Politicians downplay Arbib revelations
Arbib warned US of Gillard coup – ‘The cables suggest Senator Arbib has been secretly informing the US embassy in Canberra for several years. The former Labor minister Bob McMullan and the federal MP Michael Danby have also been revealed as close sources.’
Gillard showing ‘contempt for law’: Wilkie
Politicians downplay Arbib revelations
WikiLeaks outs Mark Arbib as US informant
WikiLeaks cables cast fresh light on coup against former Australian PM Rudd
If Only Rudd Hadn’t Expelled That Israeli Diplomat…
The realist we need in foreign affairs
Rudd and Arbib duck the North Korea of the internet

Today’s Palestine/Israel links
End Military Aid to Israel’ campaign comes to BART
Sustainable tourism or sustaining Israel’s occupation?
Alla T. Elshawa: In Gaza
Israeli warplanes attack Gaza
Israel, NATO Launch Spying Operation against Iran at Afghan Borders
Ye Shall Share the Land by Noushin Darya Framke
Sustainable tourism or sustaining Israel’s occupation?
US hails Turkey’s ‘constructive’ role at NATO,
OSCE summits

No, America, You Can’t
Palestinian takes over East Jerusalem property through co acquisition
Cheney involved in long list of crimes

Reports, Reports, Reports

(1) DSCA Releases FY2010 Sales Figures

US military sales overseen by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) topped $30 billion for the third consecutive year. Total sales for fiscal year 2010 were $31.6 billion. Sales under the government-to-government sales program called Foreign Military Sales (FMS) were $25.2 billion. Non-FMS security cooperation cases managed by DSCA under various security cooperation authorities were $6.4 billion.

The DoD program for support of Afghanistan’s security forces using the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) made up the majority of non-FMS security cooperation cases in fiscal year 2010 and totaled some $4.7 billion. This reflected continued support to the Government of Afghanistan in its fight against the Taliban and other insurgent forces. This ASFF-funded support was for training and equipping of the
Afghanistan National Security Forces. Non-FMS security cooperation cases also provided support to other foreign governments, including Iraq and Pakistan.

The Government of Israel at $4.0 billion led the FMS customer list with the highest value in sales followed by the Government of Egypt at $2.6 billion. Israel and Egypt are also the largest recipients of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds appropriated by Congress through the State Department to be used to pay for purchases of U.S. defense articles and services. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at $2.5 billion and the Government of the United Kingdom at $1.8 billion rounded out the top four FMS customers in terms of the value of sales.

(2) 2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories

The 1967 Protection of Holy Sites Law protects all holy sites, but the government implemented regulations only for 137 Jewish sites, leaving Muslim and Christian sites neglected, inaccessible, or threatened by property development. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other well-known sites have de facto protection as a result of their international importance; however, community mosques, churches, and shrines faced threats from developers and municipalities that Jewish sites did not face. Christian pilgrimage sites around the Sea of Galilee faced regular threats of encroachment from government planners who wanted to use parts of the properties for recreational areas. The law provides for a hearing of objections to any plan or construction, including submissions by representative bodies such as the NGO Arab Center for Alternative Planning.

On March 16, the Supreme Court rejected Adalah’s 2004 petition requesting that the government promulgate regulations for the protection of Islamic holy sites. The government maintained that the promulgation of specific regulations, including determining how to expand the list of holy sites, was not necessary to preserve and protect the holy sites of any religion since the law provided for the protection of all holy sites of all religions.

(3) The 2010 Israeli Democracy Index: Democratic Values in Practice

Some of the findings:

  • Israel’s high incarceration rate, combined with inadequacies in the rule of law, cause it to fall short of the accepted standard in Western countries.
  • 60% of the population in Israel thinks that a few strong leaders would be better for Israel than all the democratic debates and legislation. 59% of that same group would prefer a government of experts who make decisions based on professional rather than political considerations.
  • 86% of the Jewish public (76% of the total population) thinks that critical decisions for the state should be made by the Jewish majority.
  • 53% of the Jewish public also believe that the State is entitled to encourage the emigration of Arabs.
  • 70% of Israel’s population thinks that there is no justification whatsoever for using violence in order to achieve political goals.
  • 81% of the population agrees with the assertion that “democracy is not a perfect regime, but it is better than any other form of government.” However, 55% of the public believes that Israel should put observing the law and public order before the ideals of democracy. Of the Jewish respondents, 60% of those on the political right supported this idea compared with 50% of those in the center and 49% of those on the left.
  • 54%, slightly more than half the general population in Israel today, state that they have full or partial confidence in the Supreme Court, compared with 44% who claim that they have no confidence in it at all.
  • Only 41% of respondents said that they have full or partial confidence in the police force.
  • 72% of the population say that they do not trust the political parties, although a 63% majority oppose the view that parties are no longer needed and should therefore be abolished.
  • Compared with 45% of Arab respondents, 69% of the Jewish population claims that the constitution is important to them.
  • 43% of the general population feels that it is equally important for Israel to be a Jewish and democratic country, while 31% regards the Jewish component as being more important, and only 20% defines the democratic element as being more important.
  • 41% of the population believes that freedom of religion and speech are implemented adequately; however, 39% believe that human rights are not sufficiently implemented.
  • 72% of the general public thinks that Israel’s democracy is adversely affected by the increase in socio-economic gaps.
  • 54% of the Jewish public opposes the view that legislation should be passed penalizing anyone who speaks out against Zionism.
  • 50% of the Jewish respondents agree that it is important to allow non-Zionist political parties to participate in elections.
  • 56% of veteran Israelis agree that people who have refused to serve in the IDF should not be allowed to vote or stand in elections. 62% of immigrants from the FSU disagree with this, while 76% of the ultra-Orthodox public rejects the idea.
  • 51% of the general public approves of equality of rights between Jews and Arabs. The more Orthodox the group, the greater the opposition to equal rights between Jews and Arabs: only 33.5% of secular Jews oppose this, compared with 51% of traditional Jews, 65% of Orthodox Jews and 72% of ultra-Orthodox Jews.
  • 67% of the Jewish public believe that close relatives of Arabs should not be permitted to enter Israel under of the rubric of family unification.
  • Almost two-thirds (62%) of Jews believe that as long as Israel is in conflict with the Palestinians, the views of Arab citizens of Israel on foreign policy and security matters should not be taken into consideration.
  • 51.5% of the Jewish sample agrees that only immigrants who are Jewish as defined by Halakha should be entitled to receive Israeli citizenship automatically, while only 34.5% of immigrants from the FSU agree with it. By segmentation, 41% of secular Jews and 88% of ultra-Orthodox agree, while traditional Jews and Orthodox Jews fall in the middle, with 63% and 79% respectively.
  • 55% of the general public thinks that more resources should be allocated to Jewish municipalities than to Arab municipalities, while a 42% minority disagrees with this statement.
  • Within the Jewish public, 71% of right-wing supporters agree that more resources should be allocated to Jewish municipalities than to Arab municipalities, as compared to 46% of centrists and 38% of leftists. When segmented by degree of religious observance, 51% of ultra-Orthodox Jews agree with the statement, while 45% of Orthodox Jews, 28% of traditional Jews, and 18% of secular Jews agree with it.
  • 39% of the general population supports equal funding of religious services while 35% oppose it. Taking only the Jewish population into account, 41% support equal funding of religious services, while 33% oppose it.
  • 54% of the general population supports equal funding of schools, while 26% oppose it.
  • 46% of the Jewish public admitted to being most bothered by the possibility of having Arabs as neighbors. This was followed equally by people with mental illness being treated in the community and foreign workers (39% each). 25% would be bothered by same-sex couples, 23% by ultra-Orthodox Jews, 17% by Ethiopian immigrants, 10% by non-Sabbath observers, and 8% by immigrants from the Former Soviet Union.
  • The Arab public is less tolerant than Jews of neighbors who are “Other.” 70% thought the least desirable neighbors would be same-sex couples and 67% were opposed to having ultra-Orthodox Jews as neighbors, followed closely by 65% who would be opposed to former settlers. 48% answered that the most “tolerable” neighbors would be foreign workers.

NGO Monitor – Watching the Watchers Redux

The Israeli hasbara organisation, NGO Monitor, has taken foul, unsubstantiated swipes at Electronic Intifada and its co-founder Ali Abunimah.

NGO Monitor’s International Advisory Board consists of:

Elie Wiesel
Professor Alan Dershowitz
Fiamma Nirenstein
Elliott Abrams
Amb. Yehuda Avner
Tom Gross
Col. Richard Kemp
Douglas Murray
Judea Pearl
Judge Abraham Sofaer
Ruth Wisse
R. James Woolsey

Several of these individuals have cross-over links with US neocon and pro-Israel establishments. Click on highlighted names to find out these people’s associations and in which organisations they are involved. Some of these include the Committee on the Present Danger, Avi Chai Foundation, JINSA, Koret Foundation and the Hoover Institution. The Koret Foundation is also a major donor to NGO Monitor.

As noted in October 09, one of NGO Monitor’s co-sponsors is the Wechsler Foundation, a non-profit [sic], tax-exempt US organisation, which, along with other US-based sponsors, pad NGO Monitor with US taxpayer funds to undermine the work of peace organisations in Israel and Palestine, and the independent journalism represented by Electronic Intifada, in the interests of the Israeli and US economic elite.

Another of NGO Monitor’s major funders is the United Jewish Communities, which was formed from the 1999 merger of United Jewish Appeal (UJA), Council of Jewish Federations and United Israel Appeal, Inc and the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), which partners with the Jewish Agency in Israel.

From the JFNA site:

United Israel Appeal (UIA), as part of The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), is a principal link between the American Jewish community and the people of Israel. An independent legal entity, UIA is responsible for the distribution and oversight of funds raised by U.S. Federation campaigns on behalf of Israel for use by its operating agent, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and for securing and monitoring funds for the immigration and absorption of Jewish refugees and humanitarian migrants to Israel from countries of distress. It is with the Jewish Agency as our partner, that UIA assists American Jews to fulfill their ongoing collective commitment to contribute to and participate in the upbuilding of the Jewish State of Israel.

Further:

UIA allocates and monitors funds raised by Federation campaigns in the U.S. for UIA’s operating agent JAFI, Israeli NGO’s and the over 1000 physical projects constructed in Israel with funds from U.S. donors.

As recounted on this blog several days ago, the Israel-based parent body of the United Israel Appeal, Keren Hayesod, sealed a deal with the Israeli government in October 2010.

‘Leading the projects that Keren Hayesod will support is Prime Minister’s Office project regarding national heritage sites. Keren Hayesod has taken it upon itself to raise funds in order to supplement the Government budget and expand the scope of the project.’.

On February 21, 2010, Netanyahu presented a Cabinet Communique outlining earmark funding of the ‘national’ heritage project.

The list of sites submitted here is neither closed nor final. It can and will certainly include other sites. I also intend to include Rachel’s Tomb, to the rehabilitation of which the Jewish Agency has allocated NIS 20 million, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Since I was asked, I would like to make my intentions clear, and this is what will be.

UNESCO recently insisted that Israel remove the Cave of the Patriachs and Rachel’s Tomb, both located in the Palestinian West Bank, from its list of national heritage sites as they are sites of mosques. Abbas and Haniyeh have also requested the sites be removed from Netanyahu’s proposed national heritage trail. Netanyahu has refused to do so.

In essence, US taxpayer money is diverted through Israeli front organisations in the US, which also fund NGO Monitor, to illegal Israeli government projects in the Occupied Territories.

You can donate to worthy online journalism at Electronic Intifada here.

UPDATE

Haaretz journalist doubles as anti-“delegitimization” operative

Haaretz has an international reputation as Israel’s most liberal and reliable newspaper. But The Electronic Intifada has discovered that one of the newspaper’s regularly-featured reporters, Cnaan Liphshiz, used his news reports for the publication to promote the agenda of an extreme pro-Israel group with which he was also employed.

At the same time, Liphshiz appears to have made efforts to conceal his work with the Dutch Zionist group CIDI (Centre for Documentation and Information on Israel), an undisclosed conflict of interest which calls into question the reliability of his reports and the editorial standards of Haaretz.

From 2007 until the present, Liphshiz has written about 50 articles in Haaretz which quote information provided by CIDI or its executive director Ronny Naftaniel, usually without offering any countervailing opinion or sources. Many of Liphshiz’s stories are based entirely on information provided by CIDI.

CIDI has confirmed to The Electronic Intifada that Lipshiz worked for the organization, and is likely to work for them again in the future.

CIDI has earned a reputation as one of the staunchest advocates for Israel in the Netherlands, launching stinging personal attacks and smears on public figures and groups who dare to call on Israel to respect human rights. In an article for The Electronic Intifada, Stan van Houcke, a Dutch journalist and author, described CIDI as an organization whose main goal is to cover up Israel’s violations of international law (“Dutch ‘research’ group covers for Israeli crimes,” violations, 5 November 2007).

UPDATE 10/2/12

What can public records tell us about NGO Monitor’s funding sources?