1. it's not an "advocacy organization" but a magazine. And this a) doesn't change the fact that the dossier provides no evidence and b) other media has reported on the dossier, including The Intercept [1].
2. I only mentioned that torture has been alleged. Shin Bet has a long-standing pattern of using torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment to obtain confessions.
3. These two disgraced accountants only provided assertions on general hypotheses, no concrete evidence. Such testimony isn't worth much. To quote +972 [see above]:
> An examination of the dossier’s “evidence,” however, along with an examination of the summaries of Abdat’s and Hamuda’s repeated interrogations, reveals that the accountants — who did not work for any of the six targeted organizations — based most of their accusations on general hypotheses, what they alleged was “common knowledge,” or information they claimed was widely “known.”
> More importantly, even Abdat’s and Hamuda’s unsubstantiated testimonies indicate, at most, that some of these organizations were involved in civic and public activities such as student events, helping the sick, and poetry classes that form part of the PFLP’s work as a movement in Palestinian society. A lawyer representing one of the accountants, Abdat, further alleges that his client may have been pressured to provide testimony following interrogation methods that could amount to torture or ill-treatment.
Their reliability must also be questioned:
> Moreover, the summaries of Abdat and Hamuda’s interrogations reveal how poorly acquainted they were with the six organizations listed in Gantz’s declaration. For example, during his interrogation on March 31, Hamuda mentioned the six groups but erroneously noted that parliamentarian Khalida Jarrar is the director of Addameer, an organization that defends the rights of Palestinian political prisoners, despite the fact that she has not headed the organization since 2006 (Addameer’s current director is attorney Sahar Francis).
4. I'm not sure we should accuse AI and HRW as biased, simply for standing up for human rights in Israel, which, considering where the majority of violation lie and who the occupying power is, will necessarily focus on one player. After all, it is not the PA but the Israeli army that demolishes homes or holds people in indefinite "administrative" detention.
---
In short, it is up for the Israeli government to prove publicly - beyond a reasonable doubt - that these severe allegations of terrorism funding are true and that the designation as terrorist associations is justified. It is not up to those organizations and their defenders to prove a negative. Innocent until proven guilty is after all the foundation of state respecting the rule of law.
A designation based on secret "evidence", combined with the fact that even confidential dossiers don't offer a shred of evidence, doesn't make this look like a justified designation
[1] https://theintercept.com/2021/11/04/secret-israel-dossier-pa...