"Now [HRW], with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.
Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."
Struck by this thunderbolt, HRW quickly went into damage control mode. If you go to their home page under "Latest News", there is a link to "Why We Report on 'Open' Societies, Responding to Robert Bernstein's NYT op-ed" (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/20/why-we-report-open-societies), where it is stated:
"Human Rights Watch was saddened to read in The New York Times on October 20, 2009 that its founding chair, Robert L. Bernstein, feels he must "join the critics" of our work on Israel. We fundamentally disagree with Mr. Bernstein's views.
. . . .
Human Rights Watch does not devote more time and energy to Israel than to other countries in the region, or in the world. We've produced more than 1,700 reports, letters, news releases, and other commentaries on the Middle East and North Africa since January 2000, and the vast majority of these were about countries other than Israel."
As if to emphasize their claim of impartiality, on 20 October HRW "quite by coincidence" called on Hamas to "promptly implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report on Gaza by conducting credible investigations into serious laws-of-war violations by Palestinian forces." (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/20/hamas-investigate-attacks-israeli-civilians)
HRW, however, is disingenuous. Bernstein's claim is not that HRW has produced more condemnations of Israel than all other Middle East countries combined as HRW would have us believe, but rather that "Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country [emphasis added] in the region." How might we test this?
Go to the HRW website, go to "Browse by Country", and from there check the number of pages of HRW reports for each country. For example, you will see:
Sudan: 30
"Israel and Occupied Territories": 27
Iran: 21
Egypt: 18
Saudi Arabia: 11
Syria: 8
It need first be noted that some of the reports found in "Israel and Occupied Territories" concern violations of human rights by Hamas and Fatah, but these reports are a distinct minority. Also, classifying Gaza as "Occupied Territory" already casts a shadow upon HRW's neutrality.
Now let's look at the numbers. True, Sudan of Darfur infamy, comes in barely ahead of Israel in terms of number of pages; however, Israel is well ahead of Iran, which is known for hanging homosexuals, executing minors, persecuting Baha'is, persecuting Sunni Muslims, persecuting Jews, discriminating against women, brutally suppressing political dissent, stoning to death adulterers while their children watch, supporting genocide in Darfur, and the list continues.
Israel also comes in far above Saudi Arabia, known for its beheadings, severing of hands, whipping, gauging of eyes, discrimination against women, discrimination against Shiites, etc. I would love to learn how much of HRW's funding derives from this desert kingdom.
In summary: Donate in the future to Human Rights Watch? I'd rather pay to watch old episodes of Baywatch - zero chance of that.
This is an interesting research, Jeffrey. Thanks.
ReplyDelete