For HRW, Israel is always guilty

[shira]

For many years, Ken Roth and Human Rights Watch have been at the forefront of the campaign to criminalize self-defense against terrorism and to brand Israel as the primary perpetrator of war crimes. Emotional outbursts, convoluted pseudo-legal language and post-colonial bias have contributed to the ideological destruction of human rights principles.

In attacking the IDF's actions against Hamas in Gaza, Roth applies the skills he acquired during his years as a prosecutor in New York, building a tendentious case based on unsupported "evidence," and stripping away the context. He would have us believe that an army - and the IDF in particular - that is less than perfect must be wholly condemned, regardless of the circumstance. His case combines half-truths, speculation, unverifiable evidence and subjective claims that may seem convincing to a jury that has never experienced terror, knows nothing about Hamas, asymmetric warfare or international law, and has a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning.

HRW'S STATEMENTS on Gaza follow the organization's pattern and practice used for many years. For example, in October 2000, HRW joined the campaign blaming Israel for the highly publicized death of Muhammad al-Dura, citing "eyewitnesses" and rejecting contradictory evidence. A few months ago, a French defamation court known for its strict rulings, reviewed the details and sided with those who argued this video was staged by the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 TV - the only "witness."

In 2004, Roth held a high-profile press conference at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to publicize a glossy 135-page anti-Israel indictment entitled "Razing Rafah." The description of terrorism as "resistance" and the use of this report to promote the boycott campaign against Caterpillar over sales to Israel reveal HRW's ideological bias. The main claims were that tunnels from Egypt to Gaza posed little threat, and, according to "experts," including sales clerks, could be readily detected by equipment used in America. The IDF's attacks against buildings that hid tunnel entrances were "unnecessary," "unlawful" and designed to maintain "long-term control over the Gaza Strip." Less than one year later, Israel had fully withdrawn from Gaza, opening the way for the import of thousands of rockets through the tunnels - HRW got it completely wrong, but learned no lessons.

<snip>

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643745914&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[shira]

1. the rest of the article

Roth followed a similar pattern during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, with numerous false claims quoting "eyewitnesses" from territory fully controlled by Hizbullah. In the case of an attack in Kana, HRW adopted false claims regarding casualties that were nearly double the on-site figure provided by the Red Cross. In these and other cases, Roth has never apologized, and no independent investigations of HRW's numerous errors and biases have been conducted.

When it comes to war crimes committed by terror groups like Hizbullah and Hamas, time and again, Roth ignores the clear evidence, refusing to issue public condemnations or hold press conferences, claiming the need for thorough investigations. In contrast, Israel is found guilty from the outset. HRW issued 18 separate condemnations of Israeli policy in Gaza during 2008, exploiting the rhetoric of international law, including false claims that Israel was guilty of "collective punishment" and for causing a "humanitarian crisis." Very little was said about obvious Palestinian violations of the laws of war and common-sense morality, including launching of thousands of rockets, the indisputable use of human shields, the kidnapping of Gilad Schalit and the subsequent denial of his rights in captivity.



THE WHITE phosphorus issue - Roth's main weapon in attacking the IDF regarding Gaza - is only one aspect in this complex war. Once again, Roth has crafted a highly misleading case worthy of an aggressive prosecution, based on the allegation that the IDF caused unnecessary or indiscriminate harm to civilians. Does Roth claim to be privy to the details of Hamas military deployments in houses, schools, mosques and hospitals, as well as the targeting decisions of the IDF? And how did HRW's "military expert" (apparently Marc Garlasco, whose ideological bias and lack of expertise were evident in "Razing Rafah" and in the 2006 "Gaza beach incident"), make such determinations while observing from an unnamed distance and location outside of Gaza?

Roth justifies HRW's disproportionate campaign on the white phosphorous issue by claiming that illegal actions by terrorists do not justify "illegal" defense measures. But as Prof. Avi Bell, an international legal expert, states, "When a combatant hides in a civilian house, the house ceases to be a civilian target and becomes a military target... use of civilian shields is very relevant to the legal standard to be applied."

In contrast, HRW's flood of condemnations suggests that all weapons used in self-defense are somehow illegitimate.

In the complexities of defense against well-armed terror organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, mistakes are made, and these should be corrected. But the checks and balances in Israel's democratic process are clearly more credible than Roth's emotional outbursts, HRW's ideological "experts" and the counterproductive exploitation of international legal rhetoric. Beyond the demonization of Israel's right to defend its citizens from attack, such cynical distortions undermine the moral foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This moral destruction is antithetical to the worthy objectives envisioned by the founders of HRW.

[cali]

2. HRW dodsn't only slam Israel

It's frequently slammed Hamas as well. And yes, they've made some mistakes. That hardly invalidates the entire body of their work.

[shira]

4. they have to sometimes slam Hamas

or they risk being exposed as too biased and therefore illegitimate. I don't think focusing 95% on Israel anad 5% on Hamas shows their objectivity, however.

To my knowledge, they have never accused Hamas of anything bogus like they have Israel. In fact, do we konw of ANY other country or state actor HRW has falsely accused BESIDES Israel? And if not, isn't this very telling?

[Tartiflette]

6. Venezuela (n/t)

[shira]

7. example?

[delad]

46. yes, an example

HRW branch wrote a biased article regarding Venezuela.

[shira]

48. so has HRW written anything biased or false WRT Hamas or Fatah

For that matter, how about AI or any other respected human rights org?

Seems there are MANY examples of slanted and false accusations leveled at Israel. How about Hamas or Fatah?

ps
Can we agree that HRW has some credibility issues?

[EFerrari]

8. Yes we do. Last year, HRW issues its 2009 report 5 months early

in order to tar Hugo Chavez with all kinds of stuff. The report was such a mess that scholars all over the world protested and the HRW guy responsible was kicked out of Venezuela. Vivancos started his career as an apologist for Mr. Pinochet, and if you do a quick search, every time there was an election in the offing, Vivancos would go into his song and dance in the media.

I've never seen an Amnesty International or the ICRC worker do anything like that, let alone, have the organization stand by an employee that was obviously skewing their mission. It was dissapointing, to say the least.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Many countries have complained of alleged bias from HRW

Venezuela actually kicked them out. Supporters of China accuse them of an anti-Chinese bias. And there was a recent complaint by an American congressman that they were biased against the Iran Mujahedin.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2229

There seems to be a stereotype that most human rights organizations only focus on Israel; or at least that only their complaints about Israel are controversial. With the possible exception of the UN Human Rights organization, that's simply not true. HRW in fact has made quite a few condemnations both of Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians, and of violence toward Palestinians by both Hamas and Fatah.


ETA: And some may be interested to know that there are people prepared to complain because HRW is (in their view, not mine) too ready to blame certain human rights abuses in Palestine on the Palestinian leadership rather than Israel:


www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article5980.shtml

[EFerrari]

18. While there have been (and likely will always be) charges of bias,

the case in Venezuela was pretty clear. From the Wiki entry:

Allegations of pro-American bias against democracy in Latin America

ZMag has criticized HRW for not condemning the situation in Haiti strongly enough and stated that Human Rights Watch "has assisted the US in its efforts to crush democracy in Latin America."<3>

On December 17 2008 an open letter sent to the Board of Directors of the Human Rights Watch harshly critisised their most recent report titled A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela<4> stating that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility." Signed by 118 leading academic specialists of Latin America in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, México, the United States, the U.K. and Venezuela and others the letter cites the lead author of the report, Jose Miguel Vivanco, as evidence of its "political agenda" and calls Mr. Vivanco to discuss or debate his claims in "any public forum of his choosing".<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch

I have no personal knowledge of the case for Haiti, but have read and written about Vivanco in Venezuela. It was ugly and unfortunate because we need more not fewer reputable human rights advocates in Latin America. :(

[anonymous171]

22. It's a conspiracy I know. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. There is still the perception of a lack of equitable treatment and balance

Their reports after Lebanon only strengthen that perception

[EFerrari]

3. HRW doesn't impress me as an organization. However,

theirs is only one in a chorus of voices raised in concern over Gaza.

[shira]

5. but....

HRW has lots and lots of company in those same false, bogus accusations they tried foisting on Israel.

Can you find me some good and credible orgs that didn't join in on the Muhammad al-Dura, Jenin massacre, Gaza beach, etc.. hoaxes?

[EFerrari]

11. If that is your argument, then you need to show that the accusations are false.

[shira]

15. just 2 examples

Muhammad al-Dura and Jenin 2002.

Are you really unaware of the false allegations by human rights orgs in these 2 cases?

[azurnoir]

21. well yes didn't HRW claim that there was a

massacre at Jenin? And well Al Dura didn't French courts prove that any allegation was completely untrue?
Or is that your claim?

[shira]

23. HRW was wrong about Jenin

and Qana, and Gaza beach.

They were wrong about al-Dura too. French courts found that Karsenty had very good reason to slam France 2 for it's faux reporting. That was the verdict.

[azurnoir]

26. So this report from HRW on Jenin was wrong?

In early May, Human Rights Watch completed its report on Jenin. The report said there was no massacre, but accused the IDF of war crimes.<67> On April 18, Derrick Pounder, a British forensic expert who was part of an Amnesty International team granted access to Jenin, said: "I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn't lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see".<36> In November, Amnesty International reported that there was "clear evidence" that the IDF committed war crimes against Palestinian civilians, including unlawful killings and torture, in Jenin and Nablus.<68> The report also accused Israel of blocking medical care, using people as human shields and bulldozing houses with residents inside, as well as beating prisoners, which resulted in one death, and preventing ambulances and aid organizations from reaching the areas of combat even after the fighting had reportedly been stopped.<69> Amnesty criticized the UN report, noting that its officials did not actually visit Jenin.<70> The Observer reporter, Peter Beaumont, wrote that what happened in Jenin was not a massacre, but that the mass destruction of houses was a war crime.<71>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin

and Karsenty

the French Court believed he was "sincere"

The statement added that the case was nevertheless overturned because "the court believed Karsenty had the right to stridently criticize the report, since it dealt with an emotional topic, and that Karsenty's investigation into the matter convinced the court he was being sincere."

A source close to Enderlin's side of the case explained that "you can get out of a libel suit either by proving you're right, or by showing you were sincere and had some research. The court found the latter to be the case."

The source also said Enderlin and France 2 would appeal the verdict, noting that they had won three out of four instances of judgment in the matter.

But, replied Karsenty, the only appeal left would be to France's Supreme Court.

"If they continue to insist they are correct," added Karsenty, "we will have victims of terror attacks that directly resulted from the footage sue France 2."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1211288137213

if he actually believed in his victory why the fist shaking also the court hardly struck down the al Dura tape

[Shaktimaan]

29. well, it is certainly misleading, that's for sure.

you don't always have to lie to be dishonest. often you can achieve that end by simply leaving out important bits of information.

for example, the report says nothing about WHY the IDF bulldozed houses in Jenin. I know that you know why, because you read the wiki on it.

There certainly weren't large numbers of civilian dead lying underneath the rubble. And it turned out, there certainly wasn't any evidence of war crimes, for God's sake. (War crimes? Really?)

[ZombieHorde]

9. "campaign to criminalize self-defense against terrorism"

Is there any evidence for this?

[rateyes]

10. No group is perfect, but I prefer HRW over AIPAC

any day of the week.

[LeftishBrit]

13. What is the connection? AIPAC never claimed to be a human rights organization.

I suppose I also greatly prefer HRW to AIPAC - though I like Amnesty better than HRW. But AIPAC and HRW are apples and oranges anyway.

[endarkenment]

14. Gazans: 53% civilian casualty rate. Israelis: 23% civilian casualty rate.

Gaza's armed forces use unguided missiles and 77% of the 13 casualties suffered by Israel were military.

Israel's armed forces use precision guided armaments and 48% of the 1324 casualties suffered by Gaza were military.

Israel once again inflicted a 100-1 casualty toll on its opponents, and once again the majority of the deaths inflicted by Israel were civilian, despite the fact that Israel has and uses the latest high tech guided munitions.

The mountains of evidence that this is deliberate Israeli policy is simply ignored, those pointing out the evidence are attacked, and the same stupid excuses are trotted out to blame the victims of this policy for the policy itself.

[shira]

16. wow, this is just ignorant

and that ignorance is only exceeded by arrogance.

[endarkenment]

19. dispute the facts, dispute the logic, or otherwise make an argument

so far, all you have is insults.

[shira]

24. it's ridiculous to compare ratios

3000 Americans killed on 911.

Now look at the "disproportionate" response in Afghanistan. Do you have any idea how many have been killed in Afghanistan since 911 - and how many are civilians? Want to compare ratios and then compare the outrage between Afghanistan and PA territories?

[bemildred]

25. Go ahead, make an argument based on ratios.

:poopcorn::popcorn:

[endarkenment]

33. Still waiting for these numbers

Here: I'll do the 9-11 numbers for you.
9-11 2,974 identified dead. 125 of those died in the Pentagon, assume all were military. 96% civilian casualties. It is fair to conclude, given this data, that al qaeda was targeting civilians, right?

[Shaktimaan]

39. Are you actually arguing...

that Hamas and IJ are NOT actively targeting Israeli civilians?

[EFerrari]

17. Yep. The latest is the detruction of a nearly repaired sewage treatment system in Rafah.

It was set to re-open this week and now won't be on line until March (unless it's re-re-destroyed). Israel has the right to defend itself against public health in Gaza.

[Shaktimaan]

28. absurd.

It's fairly easy to disprove the belief that Israel deliberately targets civilians.

For one thing, cases where commanders have demanded that troops fire upon civilians are extremely rare in Israel, but they happen to be pretty famous when they do occur. Israeli troops receive more training than most other militaries regarding the rules of engagement and the entire country is in the military. If targeting civilians was deliberate Israeli policy then why haven't we heard about it from any Israelis yet?

Where are the outraged Israeli news articles? Where are the protests? Where are the whistleblowing soldiers? Israel is a democracy... You simply can not have a policy like the one you're describing in a place like Israel and expect it to remain a secret. It would be like suggesting that it is also official US policy to target Iraqi civilians.

Not to mention that no real evidence exists that suggests anything otherwise. There's statistical data that one can use to mislead, such as what you've done here. But absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever.

It is not usually the case that one is asked to prove a negative, ie: the Israelis do not target civilians. The burden of proof always lies with the accuser. You think that Israel actually targets civilians as a matter of policy? OK, more power to you if you can actually show such a thing. But please don't insult us by trotting out nothing but a few statistics as your primary "evidence".

[EFerrari]

31. You don't really read this forum, do you?

[Shaktimaan]

35. Sure I do.

Though not religiously. Why?

[endarkenment]

32. The data speaks for itself.

[Shaktimaan]

34. Very true.

It certainly does.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Cherry picking certain pieces of isolated data...

while ignoring everything else is exactly the kind of carefully constructed misinformation that got us involved in Iraq.

You know the story of the three blind men and the elephant, right? Three blind men are brought to an elephant. One touches its trunk and says, "An elephant is like a snake." The other touches its side and say, "No, it's like a wall." The third touches its tail and says, "No it's like rope."

What makes you so confident that this single, lone, context-less statistic of yours is proof-positive of your accusation?

If you took a statistics class you would know that correlation does not prove causation anyway. Your data says nothing without corroborating evidence. You're just projecting your beliefs onto a statistic, assuming that your explanation is the only possibility and presenting it as evidence or, even more laughable, as fact.

Methodology like this did not serve us well with Iraq, and it doesn't serve us well with Israel either. (Unless you really have an ulterior motive and don't care if you're proven wrong later on because the ends justify the means.)

[eyl]

36. The overwhelming majority

of rockets - even by Hamas' own claims - were fired at civilian towns. The low civilian casualty rate is largely a matter of preparedness and sheer luck.

And frankly, "smart" bombs - aren't, a dirty little secret most people ignore.

[oberliner]

47. At least three of the Israeli soldiers were killed in friendly fire incidents

And the percentage of civilian casualties among the Palestinians is widely disputed (in both directions).

In the eight years since the Second Intifada began, what percentage of those Israelis killed by Hamas were soldiers and what percentage were civilians?

[Idealism]

20. If you say it loud enough and repeat it often enough, maybe someone will believe it

Isn't that what they say about the GOP mouthpieces, too?
:shrug:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Eternal whiners!

Like the neocons, they endlessly complain about HRW and Amnesty International. The Jerusalem Post has an American neocon as an editor. It is no better than the Washington Times. My heart truly bleeds!

:nopity:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Surprised you would take the positon that HRW are eternal whiners, but its more true than not

[LeftishBrit]

44. You think HRW are just 'eternal whiners'?

Do you think they are just eternal whiners when they criticize China?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. Actually I am pulling IG chain on yet another preposterous statement

You can't put a sarcasm tag in a title

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

41. What on earth are you smoking?