PMO slams 'biased' human rights NGOs

[shira]

PMO slams 'biased' human rights NGOs
Jul. 15, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

In the opening shot of a battle Jerusalem has decided to wage with NGOs it deems biased against Israel, the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday slammed a recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) fundraising delegation to Saudi Arabia as evidence the organization has lost its "moral compass."

"A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women's rights group asking the Taliban for a donation," Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev said Monday.

"If you can fundraise in Saudi Arabia, why not move on to Somalia, Libya and North Korea?" he said. "For an organization that claims to offer moral direction, it appears that Human Rights Watch has seriously lost its moral compass."

more...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443811032&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[imdjh]

1. ""A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women's rights group....

"A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women's rights group asking the Taliban for a donation,"

Fabulous

[shira]

2. follow-up on story with head of HRW

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/fundraising_corruption_at_huma.php

snip...

...In other words, yes, the director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council (which oversees, on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, the imposition in the Kingdom of the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law) in part by highlighting her organization's investigations of Israel, and its war with Israel's "supporters," who are liars and deceivers. It appears as if Human Rights Watch, in the pursuit of dollars, has compromised its integrity.

[bemildred]

3. I'd be more impressed if he made an unequivocal statement that their claims are wrong.

Saying they take dirty money is not saying much.

[shira]

4. their claims are wrong - where would you like to begin?

maybe start 9 years ago with HRW's role in the al-Dura hoax or fast-forward to the present where they deny Hamas use of human shields and use PCHR's false count of Gazan civilian casualties?

[bemildred]

5. Him, not you. nt

[shira]

8. "saying HRW took dirty money is not saying much"

I don't know how you can say or write that with a straight face.

A MAJOR human rights organization goes to S.Arabia, among people NOT at all committed to real human rights concerns (for example, how many women drove themselves to that function that evening - zero)....and in order to raise funds they sell their anti-Israel agenda to these same people who are ONLY concerned with bashing Israel.

Seriously - you don't believe this says very much and you think HRW can still be viewed as a credible organization regarding the Israel-Arab conflict?

This is a human rights organization you still respect?

Why?

[bemildred]

9. You think all money is clean?

Do you even think most money is clean? The notion that all "non-profit" organizations are somehow automatically moral paragons is fatuous. They can be and often are every bit as corrupt as the government or businesses. Grow up. Lot's of people take dirty money for a good cause, zionists not least among them.

[shira]

10. do you believe HRW has lost any credibility? do you question their commitment to human rights?

[bemildred]

11. Do you ever read what anybody writes?

What did I just say?

[shira]

12. do you ever answer any direct questions?

[bemildred]

13. Only with people that ask in a civil manner, and who respond to mine.

So that's one direct question I answered, right?

[shira]

6. IDF: Hizbullah hiding rockets in homes

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443821498&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Where are the human rights NGO's to condemn this?

[shira]

7. HRW on Israeli airstrikes vs. HRW on US and NATO airstrikes

Here is what HRW wrote recently about Israeli airstrikes in Gaza (from HRW's “Precisely Wrong"):

“In the incidents investigated by Human Rights Watch, Israeli forces either failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that the targets were combatants, apparently setting an unacceptably low threshold for conducting attacks, or they failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to target only the former. As a result, these attacks violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war).”

And here is what HRW wrote just last year about U.S. and NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan (from HRW's “Troops in Contact”):

“The fact that civilians die or are injured in an airstrike does not necessarily mean the airstrike violated the laws of war, as long as the precautions required by the laws of war were taken and applied in good faith. Beyond the human tragedy, high civilian casualties-regardless of whether they were the result of lawful or unlawful conduct-should always be cause for concern by a military force, as the damage to an armed forces' reputation and good-will among the population can be considerable. This is particularly true in a country such as Afghanistan where loyalties are often malleable.”

Anyone notice the difference in tone - despite the US and NATO exacting far more death and destruction in Afghanistan than Israel in Gaza?

:eyes: