"As the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state."
I commend Mr. Bernstein for this courageous stand, but to what does he attribute the behavior of Human Rights Watch?
Is it because Human Rights Watch is following the lead of the Obama Administration, which, as observed by The Washington Post, only pressures Israel, while cuddling up to tyrannies?
Is it because it is easier for Human Rights Watch to work out of Israel, where freedom of speech is ensured?
Is it because an anti-Israel attitude brings funding?
Or is because anti-Semitism, which has reared its ugly head again during a global economic recession, is again in fashion?
I think anti-Semitism has never really gone away, sadly. It's truly interesting and puzzling to observe how Israel constantly gets "special" treatment. As Mr. Bernstein says, it's the only truly democratic, open society in the Middle East, surrounded by regimes that are incomparably worse in many aspects. Yet, they get ignored and Israel is singled out. Comparisons with Nazis are frequent.
ReplyDeleteBut I also think that not all of this is due to (intentional) anti-Semitism; Israel-bashing is fashionable, especially among those in the left range of the political spectrum, and many critics are simply not well-informed or unable to form a fair judgement on their own.
More pro Israeli anti-Goldstone report propaganda. How about the NY Times do a little investigation into the influences AIPAC has on reports coming out of New York and Washington.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to first read the Goldstone Report in its entirety before dismissing contrary opinion as propaganda.
ReplyDeleteYou write about "influences AIPAC has on reports coming out of New York and Washington." Whose reports? Which reports? Or is this just a personal bugaboo? By all means, tell us more about AIPAC, but anchor it in fact and reality.