Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Saudi Arabia's Human Rights Watch Is Hard At Work

From now on, every HRW report on Israel is going to be greeted with "you mean the Saudi-funded HRW," or "you mean the report written by the woman [HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson] who is a great admirer of Norman Finkelstein and lobbied Kofi Annan against Israel in the middle of the Second Intifada" or "you mean the report written by the guy [Stork] who supports the anti-Israel boycott movement and has been venting his hostility to Israel for almost forty years" or "you mean HRW, the organization that fails to take down from its website anti-Israel reports even when it has admitted they are inaccurate," and so on.
David Bernstein, Volokh Conspiracy

And yes, Human Rights Watch is at it again.

Saudi Arabia's favorite NGO has come out with its 166-page report Separate and Unequal accusing Israel of discriminating against West Bank Arabs on the “basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin.”


So for instance, according to the HRW report:
In most cases where Israel has acknowledged differential treatment of Palestinians—such as barring them from accessing “settler-only” roads and subjecting them to 505 roadblocks and checkpoints within the West Bank (as of June 2010)—it has asserted that the measures are necessary to protect Jewish settlers and other Israelis who are subject to periodic attacks by Palestinian armed groups, particularly during the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, from 2000 to around 2006.[4]
When we check out the documentation for this in footnote 4, we read:
Violent attacks by Palestinian armed groups killed 202 Israeli civilians in the West Bank between 2000 and August 31, 2010. During the same period, Israeli settlers killed 43 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Israeli security forces killed 1823 Palestinian civilians there, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem.
While it is nice that Human Rights Watch acknowledges that there were "violent attacks by Palestinian armed groups" that does not stop it from fudging the B'Tselem numbers--as NGO Monitor points out in its report HRW´s Destructive Criticism: Analysis Of False Claims Against Israel. HRW leaves out the part where B'Tselem notes the 479 "Palestinians who took part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces" and 411 "Palestinians who were killed by Israeli security forces and it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities".

That is sloppy on Human Rights Watch's part.

HRW also makes assumptions about international law as if it were actual settled law--and binding, when in fact it is not:
HRW repeatedly asserts that statements made by various UN bodies place legal obligations on Israel. But, none of these sources are legally binding. Despite HRW's claims to the contrary, the applicability of various bodies of law to Area C remains a highly controversial and contentious debate among legal scholars and authorities.
Human Rights Watch is entitled to its opinions, but should label it as such.

Human Rights Watch also promotes the BDS agenda, writing recommending "offsetting the costs of Israeli expenditures on settlements by withholding U.S. funding from the Israeli government in an amount equivalent to its expenditures on settlements and related infrastructure in the West Bank"

But according to Omar Bargouti, the founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, the goal of the BDS movement is “a unitary state, where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”

Is that the goal of Human Rights Watch as well?

The HRW report is consistent with its continuing emphasis on Israel as opposed to other countries in the region, as NGO Monitor notes:
HRW devotes disproportionate resources to condemnations of Israel. “Separate and Unequal,” the longest report issued by MENA in the past two years (166 pages), is the third in-depth report on Israel in 2010. In contrast, in 2010, HRW released a five-year study on Saudi Arabia (“Looser Rein, Uncertain Gain,” September 27, 2010) totaling only 52 pages, and a ten-year survey documenting abuses in Syria (“A Wasted Decade,” July 16, 2010) was only 35 pages. As noted in NGO Monitor’s analysis of “Looser Rein,” HRW downplays the most egregious examples of Saudi Arabia’s systematic abuse of human rights, and does not issue the harsh recommendations it directs toward Israel. In particular, HRW does not call for an end to US military assistance to Saudi Arabia.
Reuters Middle East Watch makes a point as well, arguing that:
Israel is not responsible for providing "basic necessities" to Palestinians living in the "West Bank". Those Palestinians classified as "refugees" are supported by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) which is funded to the tune of over a billion dollars annually, coming mainly from US and European taxpayers. Indeed, the Palestinians receive more aid money than any other refugees in the world. Palestinians not classified as refugees are the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas and work for their basic necessities, as do Israelis. The government of Israel is not "depriving" anyone.

With respect to infrastructure like electricity and water, Israel has spent billions of dollars since 1967 building and supplying electrical power and clean drinking water to both Jewish and Arab communities in the territory. That HRW cites a single Arab village with 150 denizens which cannot apparently get connected to the electrical grid (for security reasons) is hardly evidence of, "systematic discrimination merely because of (Palestinians') race, ethnicity and national origin", which after all, is the same as that of millions of other Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank who are connected to the power grid.
But no matter. Not doubt the next time Human Rights Watch travels to Saudi Arabia, it will no doubt be able to regale its hosts again of its anti-Israel work.

Technorati Tag: and .

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I understand you resentment towards HRW. The problem is that HRW is consistent in its claims about Israel with B'Tselem, Amesty, Doctors without Borders and just about every other credible NGO, which makes your claim that they are anti-Israel invalid.

Also when HRW watch does its next report into Saudi Arabia can the muslims too claim it has no credibility because western countries mainly fund that NGO.

If this is the best argument the pro-Israel pundits can come up with, then its you guys which have a credibility problem.

jlevyellow said...

HRW is no different than any other leftist-oriented body. Their belief is that the Jews represent a serious challenge to world order because they persist in their separate customs, speech, habits, beliefs, attitudes, interests, family organization styles, work ethic, altruism, persistence, optimism, longevity, and longstanding interest in understanding why people are here on earth.

jlevyellow said...

Anonymous is a demagogue. He insists that because many people agree on something, they must be right. Further, he has swallowed the line that if Jews wish to pursue their own interests, they must be disadvantaging someone else.

Let me just say that Jews are a very old people and have outlived most other cultures. There are reasons for that and 'anonymous' would be best off learning why than deciding they have been here long enough. Otherwise, he could find himself supporting a second Holocaust, not unlike Europe is currently doing.

Daled Amos said...

I understand you resentment towards HRW. The problem is that HRW is consistent in its claims about Israel with B'Tselem, Amesty, Doctors without Borders and just about every other credible NGO, which makes your claim that they are anti-Israel invalid.

Obviously you do not understand at all. Since the whole point is the clear bias of HRW, for you to then talk about other 'credible' NGOs demonstrates that you are ignoring the obvious bias clearly illustrated in the examples by both Bernstein and NGO Monitor.

Similarly, you overlook the article by Benjamin Birnbaum which not only goes into the criticisms of HRW by their own founder, but also reveals other biases in the group.

Amnesty International also reveals its agenda when it appeared together with a member of the Taliban, and then when criticized by one of its members--AI suspended that member. It then went on to defend the terrorist activities of the Taliban member, claiming that "jihad in self defence" is not antithetical to human rights."

What agenda?

In a column in the Washington Post in June 2005, Pavel Litvinov, a dissident active in human rights causes in the Soviet Union who now lives in the United States, wrote:
Several days ago I received a telephone call from an old friend who is a longtime Amnesty International staffer. He asked me whether I, as a former Soviet "prisoner of conscience" adopted by Amnesty, would support the statement by Amnesty's executive director, Irene Khan, that the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba is the "gulag of our time."

"Don't you think that there's an enormous difference?" I asked him.

"Sure," he said, "but after all, it attracts attention to the problem of Guantanamo detainees."


To distort an issue in order to make a point--that is what AI did in the case of Guantanamo, and there is no reason to believe it, and other NGO's, based on documented bias, are not doing the same in the case of Israel. There too, NGOs are exploiting their undeserved 'halos' to rewrite international law.

Your other statement:

Also when HRW watch does its next report into Saudi Arabia can the muslims too claim it has no credibility because western countries mainly fund that NGO.

also misses the point.

When HRW was bragging to the Saudis about their criticisms of Israel, what criticism did they muster about the Saudis?

Keeping with its mission of even-handed criticism, Human Rights Watch has also leveled criticism at other states in the region, including Saudi Arabia. The organization recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers.

No mention of women's rights.
No mention of funding Al Qaeda.
No mention of not allowing non-Muslims into certain areas of the country.

No, just a slap on the wrist about the rights of domestic workers.

What a sham.

If these are 'credible' groups then the defense of "human rights" is doomed.

Anonymous said...

A very Hasbara answer- OK, WE ARE BAD BUT THEY ARE WORST.
Ignore the message and shoot the messenger

What about B'tselem which has documented Israels human-rights abuses for years. Obviously you can't use the antisemitic, bias or any of the hasbara tricks to discredit this Jewish NGO based in Israel and mainly funded by Jews.

Daled Amos said...

A very Hasbara answer- OK, WE ARE BAD BUT THEY ARE WORST.
Ignore the message and shoot the messenger

What about B'tselem which has documented Israels human-rights abuses for years. Obviously you can't use the antisemitic, bias or any of the hasbara tricks to discredit this Jewish NGO based in Israel and mainly funded by Jews.


Ah, where to begin.
1. There is nothing here about 'we are bad but they are worse'--the point is the bias and agenda that runs through HRW and AI.

2. "Ignore the message and shoot the messenger"--considering your response, that applies more to you in this case.

3. "Obviously you can't use the antisemitic, bias or any of the hasbara tricks to discredit this Jewish NGO based in Israel and mainly funded by Jews"

According to this logic, I should believe everything that American groups say about the US?

You've got to be kidding.

Anonymous said...

When the evidence is 'irrefutable' you can not deny it any longer.
You guys are experts in finding little inconsistencies which you then claim makes the whole thing bias or incredulous. Its the same tacit used by Holocost deniers.

Daled Amos said...

When the evidence is 'irrefutable' you can not deny it any longer.

You guys are experts in finding little inconsistencies...


I don't suppose you noticed how the first half of your statement is contradicted by the second half, huh?

Or is that why you put it in quotes--since it is obviously not irrefutable at all.

Of course, your faux argument then gets into bigger trouble when we look at whether we are actually looking at small inconsistencies--like listing casualties without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants.

Yeah, that's a small irrelevant thing...

Anonymous said...

don't suppose you noticed how the first half of your statement is contradicted by the second half, huh?

You proved my point.
Did the Holocost ever happen, I wonder?

Daled Amos said...

You proved my point.

Actually, the fact that you are reduced to nothing more than semantics proves something entirely different.