Human Rights Watch replies

October 22, 9:03 AMNY Israel Conflict ExaminerRichard Shulman

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the NY Israel Conflict Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

A.P. Photo/ Bebeto Matthews -- Elie Wiesel

Human Rights Watch (HRW) replied to its founder’s denunciation of it “…we were saddened to see Robert L. Bernstein argue that Israel should be judged by a different human rights standard than the rest of the world.”  It depicted his denunciation as claiming that it “should not be reporting on Israeli conduct because Israel is a democracy,” but should report only on closed societies.  Democracies can commit serious abuse, too  (Jane Olson, Jonathan Fanton, Chair and former Chair, NY Times, A30, letter).

Critics Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz defended Mr. Bernstein.  HRW was founded, they stated, to protect dissidents from oppressive regimes.  Now HRW singles out Israel for condemnation “in a region dominated by regimes that violate human rights in horrendous ways” but to which HRW fails “to allocate proper resources.”  “…senior HRW officials even recently went to Riyadh to raise funds from people associated with the Saudi regime, emphasizing the group’s work demonizing Israel while doing so.”   [I think they mean that the elicitation drew attention to HRW practice of pillorying Israel.]

Bernstein did not make clear his complex concept of HRW’s proper role against evil regimes.  Wiesel and Dershowitz explained it better but still inadequately.  That left a loophole for HRW to misstate and mislead about Bernstein’s proposed standards.  HRW even contradicted itself, when it alleged that Bernstein wanted a different standard for Israel from the rest of the world, then stated that he wanted to treat democracies differently, which includes half the world.

Bernstein did not say that democracies should be exempt from human rights monitoring.  It is a typical defense by organizations in the wrong to misstate, distort, or spin accusations against them.  Wiesel and Dershowitz put it more as the main thrust should be against evil regimes that require a spotlight and moral pounding, and it may suffice to work with democracies capable of reform.  On the Mideast, however, HRW specializes in spotlighting and pounding Israel but slapping the rest on the wrist.  That is perverse.  But even that misses most of the point, as my prior article discerned.

HRW is operating out of bias against Israel, hiring anti-Zionist activists.  Like the UN, HRW uses faulty methods bound to yield faulty findings.  It repeats those faults even after the errors of their methodology are brought to its attention.  It uses incorrect definitions of international law and terrorism, relies on dubious witnesses unchecked, dismisses Israeli evidence, and misstates facts (and has had to retract),   Therefore, it falsely accuses Israel.  Israel does not commit war crimes.  Therefore, HRW is guilty of defamation that benefits those who do.  After years of having been criticized for practically ignoring jihadists, it issued some minor reports on them and now claims this shows objectivity.  I think it shows damage-control.

To see more on this controversy, click here