'UN Report Tarnished by Citing Biased NGOs'

UN Commission's use of 'unreliable' NGOs as references causes report on Operation Protective Edge to lack all 'credibility.'

Cynthia Blank ,

IDF tanks in Protective Edge (file)
IDF tanks in Protective Edge (file)
Flash 90

The credibility of the UN Commission of Inquiry's report on Operations Protective Edge is "irrevocably tarnished," NGO Monitor asserted Monday because of its use of "unverified allegations" from certain non-governmental groups.

"The UNHRC report would be entirely different without the baseless and unverifiable allegations of non-governmental organizations," said Anne Herzberg, Legal Advisor at NGO Monitor.

"Despite efforts to consult a wider array of sources, the report produced by McGowan Davis and her team lacks credibility as a result of NGO influence."

Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Palestinian Center for Human Rights and Al Mezan were all named by NGO Monitor as "biased and unreliable political advocacy" NGOs referenced and cited in the UN report. 

Another fundamental flaw of the report, NGO Monitor asserts, is the fact that the Commission did not properly investigate the claims of these NGOs nor allegations from Israel about Palestinian terrorists' use of civilian buildings. 

"The lack of military expertise in the commission and the UN staff clearly hampered the investigation and the resulting publication," Herzberg explained.

"In particular, the COI makes numerous assertions about feasible precautions, identification of military objectives, military necessity, and standards applied by reasonable commanders. 

"In at least four independent studies by military experts, including Col. Richard Kemp, the former head of British forces in Afghanistan, former senior US generals, and the former senior military officer for NATO, all concluded that not only did Israel exceed the requirements of international law in the Gaza Conflict but that its precautionary efforts to protect civilians were unprecedented in the history of warfare."