The "Swiftboating" of Human Rights Watch

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Last week witnessed a concerted attack against the credibility of the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), seeking to link supposed fundraising activities in Saudi Arabia with that organization's criticism ("bias", according to its detractors) of Israeli practices in the occupied territories, also claiming HRW is soft peddling on Saudi violations. It started in a Wall Street Journal piece, the Israeli prime minister's office and spokespeople weighed in, and then AIPAC and the rightwing blogosphere got onboard. The attack on HRW has now been ratcheted up according to last week's Jerusalem Post.

The former right-wing Israeli Government Minister, Natan Sharansky (also an ex-refusenik, President George W. Bush's favorite author and occupation apologist) claims that HRW "has become a tool in the hands of dictatorial regimes to fight against democracies." Ron Dermer, director of policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office adds: "We are going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups; we are not going to be sitting ducks in a pond for the human rights groups to shoot at us with impunity".

The apparent trigger for this assault on a group that represents the global gold standard in human rights monitoring, analysis, and advocacy, was a visit by HRW's Middle East-North Africa director, Sarah Lee Whitson, to the Saudi kingdom. I happened to find myself on a panel at The Century Foundation discussing the Middle East with Whitson just days before this storm broke -- I went back and watched tapes of that panel discussion. To accuse Whitson of being soft on the Saudis or somehow singling out Israel for criticism is quite astonishing as I'm sure you'll agree if you take ten minutes to listen to her presentation -- of that, more in a moment.

According to reports Whitson was hosted one evening in Riyadh by prominent businessman and intellectual, Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan, for a private dinner which included business leaders, civil society leaders, and well-connected Saudis. It was not a fundraising event. HRW was certainly not fundraising from the Saudi government. Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent quotes Whitson--"We have never raised any money from the Saudi government or any other agency in the world." That HRW does not take government money is something that is already well-known.

HRW does, of course, receive contributions from individuals and foundations -- something that does not prevent them from producing releases and reports critical of the states from whence donors hail."

more

[Jim Sagle]

1. He said credibility, heh heh, heh heh.

[azurnoir]

2. Remember Charles Freeman?

It was AIPAC that time but that episode proved linking a political enemy to Saudi Arabia was an effective tactic when Israel was involved, but will it work again so soon?

[shira]

3. another lame defense of HRW's indefensible actions

check out the talkbacks at HuffPo. It's also a shame this piece was made to be highly partisan - lefty vs. righty.

========

The author of this piece noted:

...as long as the organization adheres to standards of fact-checking and objectivity, its credibility is sustained.

...

Ms. Whitson at HRW is not rolling over, this was her response: "Please, if there is something we got wrong, if one of the incidents or attacks we described is wrong, I would love to hear it.

Fact checking and objectivity?
Credibility?
IF one of the incidents HRW describes is wrong?

Ok, here's where HRW got it wrong, for example (and there are many), with respect to the Gaza Beach incident of 2006:

On Monday, the Human Rights Watch, while sticking to its demand for the establishment of an independent inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach 10 days ago that killed seven Palestinian civilians, conceded for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF’s exonerating findings.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1150355528023

Nice, HRW admits to being wrong....good show by HRW, right?

Wrong.

If you can get away with bashing Israel, why not continue to do so?

Two weeks later, HRW concluded in their report cynically titled "INDISCRIMINATE FIRE":

“an Israeli artillery shell caused the explosion.”
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10911/section/9

Just like that - Israel is guilty of killing indiscriminately. Case closed.

Haaretz reported recently however:

However, several months later, the Olmert-Peretz government abandoned the offensive approach. The decision to also deploy artillery against rocket attacks was quickly canceled following the disaster that befell the Ghalia family on a Gaza beach. One of the girls in the family, Ilham Ghalia, who was hospitalized in Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital, told a story that was different from what Palestinian propaganda would have us believe: Her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled an unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident.

Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved her admission, which relieved Israel of blame. This anemic attitude contributed to the failure to prevent the attack on Kerem Shalom and the abduction of Gilad Shalit.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052622.html

Gee, how could this testimony from Ilham Ghalia, at the time of the incident, escape the attention of HRW?

Going back to HRW's report again:

First, it could have been a live shell that exploded on the beach as it struck. Second, it could have been an unexploded artillery shell fired earlier that lay in the sand before being detonated by the reverberations of nearby shelling that afternoon-the IDF had shelled the beach area on previous occasions. These two scenarios are the most likely...

What a crock.

1. HRW's first scenario was debunked and admitted as such by HRW several weeks before this report.
2. The 2nd scenario, the second of the 2 "most likely" scenarios by HRW, is refuted by Ilham Ghalia's testimony above.

HRW's research is nothing but propaganda - they start from the premise that Israel is guilty and go about trying to prove it in their reports. It's all smoke-and-mirrors.

GAZA BEACH: EXPLOITING GRIEF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrofvi5CPzw

HRW - credible, factual, impartial, and honest.

:eyes:

[varelse]

4. Ah, the time-honored tactic of shooting the messenger

I'm sure none of the other governments targeted with Human Rights Watch criticism have ever tried *that* before. :eyes: