Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch: More Egg on His Face After Goldstone Retraction

First, in 2009, Robert Bernstein, the founder and chairman of Human Rights Watch for 20 years, ripped into this organization, stating that "Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism" and that "[o]nly by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html).

Next, in 2010, Marc Garlasco, HRW's "military expert", left the organization after it was discovered that this investigator of "war crimes" was an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/31/expert-quits-rights-group-over-nazi-memorabilia/).

Now, in 2010, HRW's credibility has reached a new nadir with Goldstone's retraction of his Gaza report. Goldstone had been a member of HRW's board, and HRW became one of the chief proponents of the report on the Gaza war prepared for the United Nations Human Rights Council by Goldstone, which was exceptionally critical of Israel (see: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/human_rights_watch_selling_goldstone_s_indictment0).

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of HRW, cannot accept Goldstone's retraction sitting down, and has returned fire with an opinion piece in The Guardian entitled "Gaza: the stain remains on Israel's war record" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/gaza-stain-remains-israel-war-record). Roth writes:

"Goldstone backed away from a particularly controversial charge in the report – the allegation that Israel had an apparent high-level policy to target civilians. He now says that information from Israeli investigations indicates "that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy".

Goldstone was right to make that amendment.

. . . .

But Goldstone has not retreated from the report's allegation that Israel engaged in large-scale attacks in violation of the laws of war. These attacks included Israel's indiscriminate use of heavy artillery and white phosphorus in densely populated areas, and its massive and deliberate destruction of civilian buildings and infrastructure without a lawful military reason. This misconduct was so widespread and systematic that it clearly reflected Israeli policy."

Regrettably, Roth's remarks amount to little more than a smoke screen. Ignored by Roth are Goldstone's other admissions in his Washington Post retraction (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html):

• Hamas now confesses that the Israel Defense Forces numbers concerning hostile combatants and civilians killed in the operation were accurate.

• Subsequent to Operation Cast Lead, hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel.

What is the significance of Hamas's concurrence that its losses were in line with the numbers reported by the IDF? In a nutshell, this means that the IDF did a remarkable job in controlling civilian casualties, given that Hamas was fighting, i.e. firing rockets and missiles at Israeli civilian targets, from within and alongside "civilian buildings and infrastructure".

As stated by British military expert Colonel Richard Kemp in an interview with the BBC (http://zionism-israel.com/issues/Israel_human_rights_kemp_gaza.htm):

"I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza."

Of course, Colonel Kemp is never mentioned by Roth in his opinion piece in The Guardian.

And what about Goldstone's observation that Hamas and friends continue to fire mortar shells and rockets at Israeli civilian targets in southern Israel? Needless to say, also no mention of this "phenomenon" in Roth's opinion piece in The Guardian. Any such mention might interfere with HRW fundraising in, for example, Saudi Arabia (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fundraising-corruption-at-human-rights-watch/21345/).

Bottom line: Roth's attempt to equate the conduct of Hamas with that of Israel is sickening, and it is HRW's prejudicial record that remains stained.