South Africa’s Trade Minister allowed a two-bit NGO to twist his arm so that, by slapping an order on Israeli products, his government might count on the Muslim vote. Should Jewish leaders fail to overturn this order, Israeli products made beyond the Green line will have to be sold with the political label: ‘Product of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)’
This interference with trade and diplomatic relations is a product of ‘Lawfare,’ the master plan to boycott, criminalise, delegitimize, isolate and ultimately deprive the Jews of their homeland. At the disposal of that master plan the South African regime has put its law-making powers.
Win the case or lose (there’s nothing for it but to drag the government to court) Counsel for Israel will have to demolish the lawfare guru who, more than anyone, implanted OPT as the boycott movement’s principle of faith. He is John Dugard, Professor of Law at Leiden University, Holland.
Would you read out your old job title at the United Nations, professor.
“Special Rapporteur to the UN Commission on Human Rights on violation of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Amen to that, Sir. There’s a whole law module lurking in that title, now the property of a Princeton Professor, Richard Falk, who caused more than a ripple when, after assuming the mantle, he compared Jews to a dog – and a blood-thirsty animal at that.
But coming back to Rapporteur Dugard, notice from his title how he spat in the face of a principle of law he would have drummed into hundreds of undergrads: ‘Innocent until proven guilty.’ Before boarding his flight for the holyland, he was duty-bound to find Israel guilty of ‘violation of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.’
Then notice the fictional land where Israel was presumed to have violated international law: the la-la land of OPT. Your Honour, I’m not being fatuous when I tell this court that there’s no Palestinian territory for Israel to occupy. In a different court the professor confirmed that point, murmuring ‘legal norms’ while he referred to a case held three years after he had taken on the grand title.
Then there are the six criteria on which member states of the Commission were supposed to have appointed Dugard: (a) expertise; (b) experience in the field of law and human rights; (c) independence; (d) impartiality; (e) personal integrity; (f) objectivity. Supposed: how diligently UN members apply the four last criteria is no longer a question owing to the incumbent Rapporteur, the ‘Jews and dog’ professor, and a one-state (not Israel) solution man.
Mandated to find Israel guilty of crimes in the OPT, the UN Rapporteur can be no more independent, impartial or objective than a wind-up toy.
Then there’s the selection process. Dugard would have been selected from candidates short-listed by ideology. First and foremost he would have had to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. That’s a given. for what neutral candidate would agree to find Israel guilty before setting foot in the occupied territories? You see the problem, your Honour? How do you square selection based on ideology with an officer meant to be independent, objective, and impartial? They’re mutually exclusive qualities, are they not?
But that’s not the end of it, your Honour. There’s further proof of Dugard’s ideological bent in that he worked for the UN without pay. Here’s a man on a mission, prepared to work for nothing. Now a lawyer prepared to volunteer his expensive time would surely have to be driven by beliefs – articles of faith, ideology.
Dugard had to be anti-Israel for yet another reason – perhaps the ultimate one. He accepted the honour of working for a UN body knowing its record of Israel-obsession.
He knew that a third of that body’s resolutions and decisions had condemned Israel, while it adopted no resolution on China for its repression of 1.3 billion people; not one on the million female migrant workers Saudi Arabia keeps enslaved; none on Mugabe’s Zimbabwian atrocities; while complaints against Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Equatorial Guinea and Yemen were voted down behind closed doors.
On Israel the record of successful resolutions was 100 percent. And while Dugard was acting for it, the Human Rights Commission allowed the member for Syria to accuse rabbis of being trained to instill hatred in yeshiva students; it allowed representatives from ‘Palestine’ to announce that Jews celebrate their festivals by shedding blood; and it debated a claim that Israel injected hundreds of Palestinian children with HIV blood.
I leave it for the court to connect Dugard to that record.
That leaves integrity. As he travelled around Palestine looking for instances of Israel’s guilt, did Rapporteur Dugard act with integrity?
The answer to that question will be found in Dugard’s reports to the Human Rights Commission. See how he reels off statistics – fatality figures. He reels them off as a matter of fact, as if he got them from an official record. Here’s Dugard, reporting on child fatalities:
550 children have been killed, of whom 460 were Palestinians and 90 Israelis.
Look, but you will find no source reference. Now that’s a singular thing, because he started his reports by declaring a ‘duty to report on facts.’
Here, your Honour, we have supposed facts – accusatory and inflammatory facts: 460 Palestinian children that Israel killed. And Dugard cannot substantiate it! He grows coy. Now that is doubly odd, because with facts not half so harmful – the number of houses Israel demolished – he’s not coy about the source. (A credible one or not is another matter.) There Dugard is careful to substantiate his statements. But when he makes a damning claim – hundreds of children killed by Israel, a justification mouthed by militants for suicide attacks on men, women and children – Dugard fails to substantiate it.
Not only that. Go to official data on Israeli children killed in terror attacks and compare it with Dugard’s tally. He’s gone and lopped off more than 59 Israeli child victims. That’s a fact, your Honour. The professor hid more than 66% of Israeli children who Palestinians had murdered; hid them from the Commission that expected him to report on facts.
And while hiding Israeli child fatalities, he greatly inflated the tally for Palestinian children. More, Dugard covered up the outrage of Palestinian children deployed for combative duty. Integrity, your Honour!
To sum up, We looked for impartiality in Dugard the UN Rapporteur and found prejudice; for objectivity and found bias; for integrity and found deception. That’s the guru who planted OPT in the mind of the two-bit NGO, who twisted the arm of Trade Minister Davies, who made an order about Israeli goods.