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.

Anti-Semitic Scandal Involving Amnesty International Arises in Finland

Amnesty International has been hit with a new scandal:

"The head of Amnesty International’s Finnish branch, Frank Johansson, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that he stands by his statement that Israel is a 'scum state.'

. . . .

An English translation of Johansson’s blog first appeared Tuesday on the Web site Tundra Tabloids, a pro-Israel blog that monitors anti-Israeli sentiments in the Finnish media and blogosphere.

. . . .

Asked why he termed Israel a 'scum state,' Johansson told the Post in a telephone interview that it was because Israel has 'repeatedly flouted international law,' and due to his 'personal experiences inside and outside of Israel with meeting Israelis.' Johansson said that his remarks were not anti-Semitic. . . . Asked whether there are other countries aside from Israel that, according to him, meet the definition of a 'scum state,' Johansson did not specify any, but noted that there are 'Russian officials' who meet the criteria."

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=185846

Johansson claims Israel is a "scum state" and can't think of any other countries that fall into this category? Obviously, Johnansson doesn't give a damn about state-sanctioned honor killings, hangings, stonings, decapitations and whipping of women, gays and minorities throughout the Muslim Middle East. Nor could he care less, for example, about capital punishment and oppression in China. Yet, Johansson would have us believe, and perhaps even deludes himself into thinking, that he is not anti-Semitic.

This latest scandal involving Amnesty International comes on the heels of the Marc Garlasco outrage at Human Rights Watch. As observed several months ago by The Sunday Times following the revelation that HRW's military expert was a collector of Nazi meorabilia:

"[HRW] accused those who raised the issue of Garlasco’s hobby of being part of 'a campaign to deflect attention from Human Rights Watch’s rigorous and detailed reporting on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by the Israeli government'. It even used the word 'conspiracy': its programmes director, Iain Levine, later went so far as to directly accuse the Israeli government of being behind it. But he provided no evidence for the charge.

The vehemence of Human Rights Watch in defending Garlasco surprised many. But it made sense for two reasons. Though HRW relishes complaints from infuriated dictatorships, it is not used to its personnel and methods being questioned at home.

. . . .

Some conflict zones get much more coverage than others. For instance, HRW has published five heavily publicised reports on Israel and the Palestinian territories since the January 2009 war.

In 20 years they have published only four reports on the conflict in Indian-controlled Kashmir, for example, even though the conflict has taken at least 80,000 lives in these two decades, and torture and extrajudicial murder have taken place on a vast scale. Perhaps even more tellingly, HRW has not published any report on the postelection violence and repression in Iran more than six months after the event.

. . . .

I interviewed a human-rights expert at a competing organisation in Washington who did not wish to be named because 'we operate in a very small world and it’s not done to criticise other human-rights organisations'. He told me he was 'not surprised' that HRW has still not produced a report on the violence in Iran: 'They are thinking about how it’s going to be used politically in Washington. And it’s not a priority for them because Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let’s face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel.'"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076462.ece

"The thing that really excites them is Israel"? What a surprise. Israel is also what has many so-called "liberal" journalists at The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN salivating at the thought of any news item, however small, that can be used to denigrate the Jewish state.

And their willingness to ignore the must vile human rights violations occurring elsewhere in the world? Observe how much coverage the imminent stoning of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani in Iran, which resulted in demonstrations throughout the world, received, for example, at The New York Times.

Yet all of these pundits and soothsayers of the Left will go to their deathbeds denying that their activities were tainted by anti-Semitism.

Yemen: Where are Goldstone and Human Rights Watch?

According to the Tehran Times:

"Since the beginning of November, Saudi forces have attacked residential areas and border villages in Yemen, killing and injuring many people.

The Saudi Army has deployed one of its main brigades, which consists of at least 13,000 troops, to northern Yemen.

. . . .

Terrorism and extremism are the most serious problems in Yemen, and certain people are trying to turn Yemen into a center for terrorist activities, [Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki] added."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=207645

However, the Saudi Gazette provides us with a different account concerning the battle with Shiite rebels on the Saudi border with Yemen:

"The Saudi forces will continue their airstrikes against the infiltrators until they move back from the Saudi frontier, Assistant Minister of Defense for Security Affairs Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz said Tuesday. 'We are not going to stop the bombing until the infiltrators retreat tens of kilometers inside their border,' Prince Khaled said on a visit to Saudi troops in southwestern Jizan province."

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009111154154

There's a Middle East conflict that doesn't involve Israel? Why aren't the NGOs protesting this slaughter, or might this somehow affect their fund raising activities in Saudi Arabia?

Many civilians have died? Where are Goldstone and the Human Rights Council, or doesn't brewing enmity between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia matter? Could it be that if Israel can't somehow be blamed, the world yawns and goes about its business?

Israel Braces for Two-Front War

Hamas is smuggling Iranian missiles into Gaza, which are capable of hitting Tel Aviv. Appearing before the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset (Israeli parliament), Major General Amos Yadlin, Head of Israeli Military Intelligence, stated that there had been at least one recent test firing by Hamas of a rocket with a 60-kilometer range into the Mediterranean Sea, placing Tel Aviv within range of Hamas.

It is not clear whether Hamas has acquired Iranian Fajr 3 rockets, which have a maximum range of some 50 kilometers, or Fajr 5 rockets, which can hit targets 70 kilometers away.

Meanwhile in the north, Hezbollah has accumulated 40,000 missiles from Syria and Iran, many hidden in southern Lebanese villages, all aimed at Israel.

When does Iran instruct its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to ignite the next war? It's coming, and many civilians on both sides will inevitably die.

Where are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN and Goldstone? All bitterly complaining about the Israeli blockade of Gaza, as the missiles pass under the sands from Egypt into Gaza and across the Turkish and Syrian borders into Lebanon.

No More Saudi Human Rights Violations

Read the Saudi Gazette and you will learn that my friend King Abdullah has launched a campaign to ensure that there will be no further human rights violations in the desert kingdom, long known for its oppression, intolerance and savagery. If you don't believe it, take the time and read the article yourself:

King approves promotion of human rights culture

Saudi Gazette staff

Riyadh – In a move to make human rights most secure in the Kingdom, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah has approved the launch of a nationwide campaign to promote human rights culture, said Bandar Al-Obyan, chairman of the Saudi Human Rights Commission, Saturday, in a statement carried by Saudi Press Agency (SPA).

The royal approval would allow the commission to outline the broad policies of the campaign, offering an ideal opportunity to further link human rights to the overall work of the government.

The Commission said it will launch the campaign with the help of educational and media organizations across the Kingdom, vowing the release of the detailed plan of the campaign after deliberating with human rights activists and agencies in the Kingdom.

The commission will hold training sessions for all Saudi authorities concerned with human rights, Al-Obyan said.

The projected national human rights campaign has vowed to spread the message of tolerance and respect of the World Charter of Human Rights, and above all that one message of human rights that Islam has guaranteed humanity, he added.

The human rights culture is not novel to Saudi culture, rather it is deeply-rooted in Islamic heritage, and it needs to be prompted and enforced, Al-Obyan said.

The campaign will educate the public on the Kingdom’s legal procedures and instructions that protect their rights, he said, warning against any violation of human rights in the Kingdom.

One of the goals of the campaign is to check all government employees’ behavior with the public against the principles of human rights, Al-Obyan said.

The dissemination of the human rights culture in the Kingdom is, in fact, clear evidence of the King’s vision for promoting peace, security and integrity for all people living in the Kingdom, he added.

(http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009110253314)

Bravo, Abdullah! I am certain that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are proud of you and can continue to solicit funds in Saudi Arabia.

What's the matter? You don't trust Abdullah? In the space of this short article, I counted the words "human rights" 14 times, and if that's the case, surely the Saudis mean exactly what they say. Eye gougings, lashings, beheadings, the severance of limbs, religious fanaticism and abuse of women will all continue, but at least there will be "human rights".

Welcome to the world of Middle East doublespeak.

Bernstein or Human Rights Watch, Who's Correct?

This week, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html), Robert Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch and the former CEO of Random House, assailed Human Rights Watch for discrimination against Israel. Bernstein claimed:

"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.

Human Rights Watch Assailed by Founder

In an op-ed entitled "Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast" in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html), Robert Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch and the former CEO of Random House, assails Human Rights Watch for discrimination against Israel:

"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?