Memorandum by NGO Monitor
NGO Monitor was founded to promote critical
debate and accountability of organisations that claim to encourage
universal human rights and provide humanitarian assistance in
the Arab-Israeli conflict zone. Our objective is to publish detailed
analyses and reports on the activities of the NGO community, for
the benefit of policy makers, journalists, philanthropic organisations
and the general public. NGO Monitor has over 10,000 subscribers
to its weekly reports and monthly digests, and averages over 1000
daily unique visits on its website.
NGO Monitor1 has compiled this report specifically
for the House of Lords Sub-Committee C Inquiry into "The
European Union and the Middle East Peace Process," based
on information presented on the NGO Monitor website.
NGO Monitor's detailed research on EU support
for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved the Arab-Israeli
conflict demonstrates that many recipients violate the EU's funding
guidelines and act in opposition to the EU's support for the Peace
Process. This research is highly pertinent to the Committee's
discussion on the "effectiveness of existing instruments
in achieving EU objectives" whether "the EU's policies
and instruments [are] coherent" and "how well adapted
are the ... Euro-Mediterranean (Euromed) Partnership to supporting
the EU's policies on the MEPP."
This report details how a number of European
Union (EU) funded Palestinian and Israeli NGOs, persistently campaign
against Israel in international forums, employ biased rhetoric
aimed at de-legitimising Israel. Specifically, EU support for
the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, War on Want, MIFTAH and
the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) contradicts
stated EU policies of supporting "less politicised, more
practical activities which will promote communication and understanding."
1. The European Union (EU) is the largest
single donor to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and is particularly
active in supporting politicised Palestinian NGOs. Many recipient
NGOs may well be vital and worthwhilethis report does not
attempt to assess or address the efficiency or impact of such
aid programs. In keeping with NGO Monitor's mission, this report
focuses on the politicisation of certain EU-funded NGOs, especially
those claiming to promote human rights. As will be demonstrated,
many of these NGOs display a clear bias, lobby against Israel
and promote Palestinian positions in keeping with the 2001 Durban
strategy2. This violates the EU's own guidelines for NGO funding
which stipulate "less politicised, more practical activities
which will promote communication and understanding." Some
of these groups actively oppose official EU policy and regularly
refer euphemistically to terrorism.
2. EU-funded NGOs and related frameworks
examined in this report include, the Euro-Mediterranean Human
Rights Network3 (EMHRN), MIFTAH4, the Palestinian Centre for Human
Rights5 (PCHR), the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions6
(ICHAD), War on Want7, the East Jerusalem YMCA8, Adalah9, the
Treatment and Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture10,
the Arab Association for Human Rights11 (HRA), HaMoked12 and Machsom
3. EU funding for Palestinian NGOs must
meet certain guidelines, as specified in the National Financing
Plan 2004 for the West Bank and Gaza14. This document states that
the EU should support "local and international civil society
initiatives which promote peace, tolerance and non-violence"
and "ideas ... for achieving the two-state solution."
Crucially, it goes on to state that the program aims to promote
initiatives which entail "less politicised, more practical
activities which will promote communication and understanding."
As illustrated, these guidelines are breached by the EU's support
of a number of NGOs.
EU FUNDING CHANNELS
4. In 2005, 7.5 billion was disbursed
through the Europe Aid Cooperation Office15 (AIDCO) which is an
office of the European Commission. 279 million of this goes
to the Palestinian Authority16, making the EU the largest single
contributor17 of international aid to the Palestinians. A significant
proportion of this money is channeled through NGOs, humanitarian
aid and development organisations as well as groups claiming to
promote human rights.
5. Several different bodies which disburse
the EU's humanitarian and development funds. The structure and
organisation of the programs is complex and non-transparent, and
there were considerable problems accessing funding information
from before 2004.
6. The European Initiative for Democracy
and Human Rights (EIDHR) is one of the principal EU agencies responsible
for financing Israeli and Palestinian NGOs. EIDHR is a branch
of AIDCO and claims to "promote and support human rights
and democracy." In 2004, EIDHR had a budget of 125
million18 and a number of the NGOs mentioned in this report are
funded from this program. The details of EIDHR's funding programs
for 2005 and 2006 are not yet available as the funding allocations
for both years were combined and the details will only be made
available in 2007.19
7. The other main source of EU funding to
NGOs in the region is the Partnership for Peace Programme (PfPP)
which is part of the MEDA framework.20 MEDA21 is a major branch
of AIDCO and its funds are used to implement the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership22, (also known as the Barcelona Process) which is
a framework of political, economic and social relations between
the member states of the EU and the countries of the southern
Mediterranean. Between 2000 and 2006, MEDA disbursed 5.35
billion23. In 2003 specifically, MEDA committed 600 million
for its various regional programs.
Palestinian Center for Human Rights
8. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights24
(PCHR) received over 293,00025 from EIDHR in 2004. Despite
some valuable projects documenting intra-Palestinian human rights
abuses, including a campaign to abolish the death penalty in the
PA,26 PCHR routinely erases context to demonise Israel in its
publications and lobbies against the country in international
forums such as the UN.
9. PCHR has Special Consultative Status27
under the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and has used
this platform to promote political warfare against Israel that
fuel the conflict. PCHR provided written statements to the Commission
on Human Rights (Fifty-Eighth session). The submissions of January
200228 and February 2002 used extremist rhetoric such as "ethnic
cleansing", "apartheid" and "extreme racism",
and called for the suspension of the Euro-Israeli Association
Agreement. Both statements concluded by calling on the international
community to impose "comprehensive arms, oil, economic and
trade sanctions and embargoes" and "downgrade diplomatic
relations including sports, education, academic, cultural and
other initiatives"policies which the EU does not endorse.
PCHR has also signed the petition calling for the academic boycott
10. PCHR regularly describes Israel's policies
as "apartheid"30 and accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing31
and collective punishment. In a press release of 24 April 200632,
PCHR described Palestinian terrorists as "activists",
and in a "special report" of September 200633 referred
to Israeli operations against "Palestinian resistance activists."
NGO Monitor reported34 that in a press release of March 200435,
PCHR described the killing of Hamas founder and leader Ahmed Yassin
as "state-sponsored terrorism", despite Yassin's culpability
in the deaths of scores of Israeli civilians.36
11. The objectives of the EIDHR program37
state that the project aims at "reinforcing the engagement
of civil society in conflict prevention and resolution".
These goals are not furthered by EU support for PCHR.
12. In 2004, MIFTAH38 received $37,750 through
Keshev, an organisation funded by the EU.39 All organisations
which will be indirect recipients of EU funds are listed in the
contract between the EU and the directly funded NGO.40
13. MIFTAH is a political lobbying group
which claims to increase "global awareness and knowledge
of Palestinian realities by providing policy analysis, strategic
briefings and position papers." Despite claiming to be non-partisan41,
MIFTAH is extremely politicised, uses Durban strategy rhetoric,
characterises terrorists as "activists" and "freedom
fighters," and promotes political campaigns.
14. MIFTAH's politicisation is evinced by
the membership of its Board of Trustees.42 Hanan Ashrawi, is the
head of the Executive Committee, founder and first Secretary-General
of Miftah. She is also a member of the Palestinian Legislative
Council (PLCthe Palestinian parliament) and is a prominent
Palestinian spokesperson. Other members of Miftah's board who
are also current PLC legislators include Mustafa Barghouti who
is also a former Palestinian Presidential candidate and Ziad Abu-Amr.
15. In December 2004, MidEastWeb sent a
letter to MIFTAH43 that exposed some of MIFTAH's work as fabrications.
MIFTAH invented interviews with Ariel Sharon and quoted him as
saying44 "I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that)
will be born in this area ... I wanted to encourage my soldiers
by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for
Jews." These and numerous other "quotations" were
found to be completely false. Other quotations attributed to Sharon
were found to be misattributed and taken out of context.
16. MIFTAH routinely describes Israel as
an apartheid state45 and characterises Palestinian terrorists
as "activists."46 In an op-ed on the MIFTAH website
on 2 August 200647, the author claimed that Israel was deliberately
targeting Lebanese civilians. The author wrote that Lebanese civilian
deaths "are part of a systematic policy carried out by the
Israeli military establishment, approved by the highest political
echelons, aimed at squashing, silencing and obliterating any voice
of rebellion, anyone who dares stand up to the beast." In
an editorial of 9 June 200648 MIFTAH described Jamal Abu Samhadana49,
the leader of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), as a "Palestinian
freedom-fighter." PRC is responsible for numerous terrorist
attacks50 against Israeli civilians, including missile attacks
aimed at Israeli cities, and is suspected of having carried out
an attack on a US convoy in Gaza in October 200351 which killed
three security guards and severely wounded a US diplomat.
17. MIFTAH has described suicide bombings
against civilians as "resistance". An article of 5 July
2006 about Palestinian women during the last six years of violence
stated that "several young women also decided to join the
ranks of the resistance movement", went on to describe the
first Palestinian female suicide bombing and commented that "this
marked the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated
to sacrificing their lives for the cause."
18. MIFTAH promotes a number of political
campaigns including a petition to "End the Israeli Occupation"52
and the "National Initiative to Resist the Wall."53
MIFTAH's extremely politicised activities are in direct violation
of the explicit EU funding guidelines.
War on Want
19. War on Want54 (WoW) states that it receives
funds from the EU55 although no further details of this funding
are supplied by either WoW itself or the EU. WoW is a British
NGO supposedly devoted to alleviating poverty in developing countries.
However, it also runs a particularly virulent political campaign
against Israel and has called for sanctions against Israel, lobbied
against its security barrier and participated in the Israel divestment
20. In a briefing paper entitled "Time
for Sanctions Against Israel"56, WoW stated that "War
on Want calls on the UK government to press for an immediate suspension
of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. WoW also provides a downloadable
petition57 form to send to U.K. Prime Minister Blair stating that
"We call on the Prime Minister to state his support for sanctions
against Israel now, and to ensure their introduction as an immediate
21. WoW campaigned for the Church of England58
to divest its investments in Caterpillar and also called on the
Methodist Church of Great Britain59 to "divest from companies
supporting Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine."
22. The UK Charity Commission warned WoW
in August 2005 about its political activities60 posing a threat
to its charitable status. A new investigation of WoW was launched
by the Commission in July 200661 and as of February, 2007, has
yet to be completed.
23. WoW also uses politically charged rhetoric
when discussing Israeli policies. The terms "war crimes"62
and "collective punishment"63 are frequently used in
WoW's reports, petitions and press releases and War on Want consistently
labels Israeli policy as apartheid, especially in relation to
Israel's security barrier. Numerous articles talk of a "campaign
of apartheid"64, "the apartheid nature of the West Bank"65,
and the "apartheid wall."66 In WoW's documentation it
invariably fails to mention Palestinian terrorism and argues that
Israel's security concerns do not justify the infringement of
Palestinian human rights.
24. The EU's funding for this NGO is particularly
troubling, given its political campaigning and incitement.
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
25. Under the Partnership for Peace Programme,
the EU gave the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
472,00067 in 2005. ICAHD68 states that its goal is "to
oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in
the Occupied Territories" but the scope of its advocacy and
lobbying extends much further.
26. ICHAD campaigns69 for boycott divestment
and sanctions against Israel and has consistently labeled Israel
an "apartheid" state70. As reported by NGO Monitor71,
Jeff Halper, ICAHD's Director, asserted in a June 2004 statement72
that "the Palestinians' need to resort to terrorism raises
questions of fundamental fairness. One cannot expect a people
to suffer oppression forever, to abrogate their own human rights
in favor of those of others." ICAHD has also endorsed a solution
that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state73. Halper
said in a paper74 given at the "United Nations International
Conference on Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People"
in New York in September 2003, that "the stage is thus set
for the next phase of the struggle for a just resolution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict: an international campaign for a
single state." As in the case of EMHRN, the EU's financial
support for this NGO actively undermines its own foreign policy
objectives as well as violating its NGO funding guidelines,75
which mandate that EU funding must support "achieving the
two-state solution in accordance with the Road Map."
Euro Mediterranean Human Rights Network
27. The Euro Mediterranean Human Rights
Network76 (EMHRN) received 1 million from EIDHR in 200477.
EMHRN is an umbrella organisation for NGOs in the Euro-Mediterranean
region. It frequently calls for political action to be taken against
Israel and issues one-sided condemnations of Israeli responses
to terrorism. EMHRN provides a platform for and promotes the views
of its partner NGOs, which include78 the extremely politicised
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights79 (discussed above) and Al
Mezan80, which repeatedly condemn Israel army (IDF) operations,
while ignoring the context of terrorism. The politically active
NGO, Al Haq81, is also an EMHRN partner.
28. EMHRN's political lobbying is well illustrated
by its persistent call for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association
Agreement, which provides for trade concessions in certain markets.
In a letter of October 200282 to Javier Solana, then EU Foreign
Affairs Minister, EMHRN called on the EU to suspend the Agreement,
due to "Israel's indiscriminate, excessive and disproportionate
use of force ... Willful killings, arbitrary executions and targeted
assassinations." In November 2003, EMHRN again wrote to Solana
and EU foreign ministers83 calling for a suspension.
29. In August 2005, EMHRN issued a report
entitled "Israel's Human Rights Behaviour, 2004-2005."84
The report condemned Israel's construction of its security barrier
and its security policies in the West Bank and Gaza. The report
specifically censured the restrictions on movement in the West
Bank but failed to mention the Palestinian terrorism which is
the cause of these measures. It also stated that "the provision
and extension of economic privileges and trade agreements should
be made dependent on Israel's human rights behaviour", with
the implication from the report that such trade privileges should
be suspended, in line with EMHRN's consistent call for such action.
30. In addition, EMHRN issued a press release
on 12 April 2006 entitled "Should the Palestinians be Punished?"85,
which stated that the EU decision to freeze international aid
to the Palestinian Authority after the election of Hamas "displayed
a permanent double reasoning as, at the same time, it tolerates
the multiple violations of Human Rights which the Israeli government
is guilty of committing." EMHRN said nothing about the violence
and terrorism employed by Hamas nor did it call on Hamas to adopt
the demands of the Quartet to renounce violence and recognise
Israel. The statement called on the "European Union [to]
reestablish its financial aid" to the PA, in effect creating
a situation where an EU-funded NGO is using that funding to lobby
against stated EU policy.86
East Jerusalem YMCA
31. In 2005, the Europe Aid Cooperation
Office (AIDCO) provided 500,000 to the East Jerusalem YMCA87
for its Vocational Training Program88, 89 Such support is problematic
as money is fungible, and all EU funds contribute to the status
and financial capacity of this extremely politicised NGO that
promotes the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Campaign against Israel90
and has also signed a petition calling for an academic boycott
32. The Vocational Training Program provides
education in various fields including construction, plumbing,
auto-mechanics and computing. However the East Jerusalem YMCA
also runs an Advocacy program92, which conducts, among others,
the "Free Palestine Campaign".93 The Advocacy program
also operates a number of political activities94 such as organised
tours to the Palestinian territories for international YMCA branches
and visits abroad by Palestinian youth, "to communicate first-hand
experience of Palestinian life under occupation ... ongoing oppression
and injustice." The "explanation" of the program's
"theological roots" employs classic anti-Semitic themes.
The program's description says that "Jesus was crucified
with the people who were branded as `terrorists' by the authorities
of his time. The Palestinians are currently crucified, humiliated,
and denied their human rights and dignity." The promotion
of such theories contradicts the YMCA's alleged commitment95 to
"universal values of human dignity, peace, and justice."
33. The Joint Advocacy Initiative96 (JAI)
is also a program of the East Jerusalem YMCA. It undertakes specifically
political activities against Israel. It helps coordinate a weekly
demonstration97 in the West Bank town of Al Khader and distributes
t-shirts saying "Isolate the Israeli Apartheid." A highly
contentious research paper was published by the JAI entitled "Palestinian
Christians in Struggle"98 which claims that "the decline
of this [Christian] population [in Israel and the Palestinian
territories] is a highly political phenomenon in that the Israeli
state considers Palestinian Christians to be a threat to their
continued occupation of Palestine." There was no mention
of the ongoing oppression of Christians under the PA99.
34. In 2004, EIDHR allocated 513,000
to Adalah100. The EU has consistently funded Adalah101, a group
which provides legal advocacy for Arab citizens of Israel, but
frequently attacks Israel on a political basis and participates
in political campaigning.
35. In a newsletter of May 2004102, Adalah
compared Israel to apartheid South Africa and denounced Israeli
security policies while failing to mention the Palestinian terror
which prompted those security measures.
36. Adalah also accused Israel of war-crimes103
in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, a claim incongruent
with the facts104 and discounted by numerous commentators. On
13 August 2006105, Adalah sent a letter to the Attorney General
of Israel, Menachem Mazuz, arguing that Israel's military operations
in Lebanon were war crimes and compared the IDF actions aimed
at destroying the Hezbollah terrorist organisation with war crimes
committed during the break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
The EU is a major donor to Adalah, and is therefore well-placed
to pressure the NGO to abandon its politicisation or cease any
further funding for it.
Treatment and Rehabilitation Center for Victims
37. In 2004, EIDHR gave106 the Treatment
and Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture (TRCVT) 996,000.
TRCVT says107 that it was established to "to provide psychosocial
services to survivors of politically-motivated torture and violence"
but also undertakes political advocacy and campaigning.
38. In an extremely biased and historically
inaccurate statement of June/July 2006108, TRCVT called for the
release of Palestinian politicians who were arrested after Hamas'
abduction of an Israeli soldier from sovereign Israeli territory
on 25 June 2006.109 In the document, TRCVT states that "the
Palestinian people have been suffering under the Israeli occupation
for more than 58 years", a statement implying that all of
Israel, not just territory captured in the 1967 War, is "occupied"
territory. The statement alleges that the arrested politicians
"most probably will become a victim of torture." In
another statement of July/August 2006110, TRCVT characterises
Israeli actions in the Lebanon War as "random bombing of
the Lebanese infrastructure and killing of tens of Lebanese citizens,"
in response to "a military action carried out by the Lebanese
resistance of Hezbollah."
HRAArab Association for Human Rights
39. The Partnership for Peace Programme
provided the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA) with 95,000
in 2005111. The HRA112 states that "our mandate is the protection
and promotion of international human-rights standards of the Palestinian
Arab minority in Israel." However, HRA often exceeds this
mandate, addressing wider political concerns of the Israel-Palestinian
conflict, using inflammatory language to vilify Israel.
40. For example, on 31 July 2006, HRA issued
a press statement113 entitled "Israel's war crimes, massacres
and blatant breaches of international law continue unhindered
in Lebanon and Gaza." The press release talks of "violent
massacres" and "collective punishment" and states
that "more than 60 civilians" were killed by an Israeli
Air-force attack on the Lebanese village of Qana. The figures
provided by the Red Cross on 30 July114 stated that 28 people
had been killed, but HRA has not issued a correction. The Press
release also attacked the EU stating that it should use the Association
Agreement between the two states to pressure Israel for a ceasefire
41. Another HRA press release of 15 March
2006115 condemned Israel's seizure of Ahmed Saadat, the leader
of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) who
is suspected by Israel of having ordered the assassination of
Cabinet Minister Rehavam Zeevi in 2001. HRA makes no mention that
the arrest was prompted by Hamas threats to release Saadat from
prison. HRA called the seizure "illegal", accused the
U.S. and U.K. of complicity in the operation and called on the
international community to "put pressure on Israel to retract
from this illegal action and to return the prisoners to PA jurisdiction."
42. Under the Partnership for Peace Programme116,
HaMoked117 was given 93,000 in 2005. HaMoked's aims, as
registered with Israel's Registrar of Non-profit Organizations,
are to "provide assistance to persons who have fallen victim
to acts of violence, abuse or deprivation of basic rights by governmental
authorities (including local government)." Hamoked's website
specifies more directly that its aim is to "assist Palestinians
whose rights are violated by the Israeli authorities or as a result
of Israeli policy."
43. Its 2002 report118 "Human rights
violations by Israel against Palestinians in the course of 2002"
runs to nearly 100 pages but fails to mention the widespread Palestinian
terrorism of this period which led to the death of hundreds of
Israelis. By divorcing this crucial context of Israel's counter-terrorist
measures from its human rights analysis, HaMoked illustrates its
disregard for the right of Israelis to live without the threat
44. HaMoked has also participated in political
campaigning. In September 2004119, HaMoked took part in the "United
Nations International Conference of Civil Society in Support of
the Palestinian People." This was a conference of the U.N.
Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian
People120, a highly politicised body of the U.N. which lobbies
exclusively for "Palestinian rights". At the conference,
the Committee resolved121 to "pressure Israel and our own
Governments to move towards strict enforcement of the Advisory
Opinion of the ICJ" which called for Israel's security barrier
to be removed. The conference also resolved to "promote a
sporting, cultural and economic boycott"122 of Israel.
45. In July 2006, HaMoked demanded that
Israel open the Karni goods crossing into Gaza but did not acknowledge
the severe security risks involved in operating the crossing.
Since 2000 Palestinian terrorist groups have persistently attacked
this crossing123 causing numerous deaths and injuries. On 14 January
2005124, Palestinian terrorists blew a whole in the wall of the
crossing, shot and killed six Israeli civilians and wounded five.
On 14 March 2004, the crossing was used to smuggle terrorists
out of Gaza who then blew themselves up in the Israeli city of
Ashdod, killing 10 people125 and wounding 16. HaMoked's failure
to even mention Israeli security concerns when calling for sanctions
illustrates the political bias.
46. Given the EU's influence as a donor
and in order to maintain the EUs neutrality, the Partnership for
Peace program must pressure HaMoked to avoid such political lobbying.
47. In 2005, under the Partnership for Peace
program126, the EU gave Machsom Watch127 60,000. Machsom
Watch states128 that its goals are "to monitor the behaviour
of [Israeli] soldiers and police at checkpoints" and that
"the group is politically pluralistic within the context
of opposition to the occupation." Machsom Watch reports are
often emotive and politically charged, and the reliability of
its claims is questionable.
48. A notable example of the group's political
stance against Israeli policy occurred on 9 November 2004129 when
a Palestinian arrived at a checkpoint with a violin case and was
filmed playing his violin. Machsom Watch alleged that he had been
forced to play by the soldiers manning the checkpoint to humiliate
him. The IDF denied this130, stating that the man was only asked
to open his violin-case and started playing of his own accord.
Members of Machsom Watch present at the incident admitted later
that they did not hear131 what the soldier in question said to
49. The NGOs mentioned in this report are
all compromised by their politicisation, which puts them at odds
with EU funding guidelines. MIFTAH, PCHR, ICAHD and War on Want
actively promote the Durban Strategy of demonising Israel through
manipulation of human rights rhetoric, and boycott and divestment
campaigns. Combined with their intense political activity, extremely
partisan approach to the conflict and euphemistic references to
terrorism, they should be excluded from any future EU funding
50. The EU should also pressure the other
organisations mentioned in this report, particularly, HRA and
the East Jerusalem YMCA, to adopt a more neutral stance to the
conflict, which acknowledges internal Palestinian responsibility
and Israeli security needs in any human rights analysis. In order
to better advance the EU's goals of promoting tolerance and peace,
a reconsideration of the goals of EMHRN is also necessary. This
network's agenda is pre-determined by its partner NGOs, whose
activities often contradict the stated goals of EMHRN and the
13 March 2007
|19||Confirmed by the EC Technical Assistance Office for the West Bank and Gaza Strip in correspondence of 16.10.06
|20||Confirmed by the EC Technical Assistance Office for the West Bank and Gaza Strip in correspondence of 28.9.06
|40||Confirmed by the EC Delegation to the State of Israel in correspondence with NGO Monitor, 19 September 2006
|86||The legal implications of EMHRN's advocacy role is discussed further in "NGOs in the European Framework: EMHRN and the anti-Israel Campaign," 9 October 2006
|89||Document provided to NGO Monitor by the EC Technical Assistance Office for the West Bank and Gaza Strip