IS HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH'S 'HALO' SLIPPING? It's good to know that a year after Israel's war with Hezbollah, HRW has finally gotten around to condemning Hezbollah for targeting civilians--but it is telling that their report is less of a revelation than the fact that they finally came out with the report at all.

Last year, HRW was all about condemning Israel--and according to NGO-Monitor, the media has not forgotten that:

A recent Harvard study of reporting on the 2006 Lebanon War shows that most of the media around the world continued to cite HRW’s claims on the Qana incident, even after HRW was forced to admit their errors. And there are many other examples, not only with respect to Israel, but in Colombia, Iraq, and wherever NGOs rely on “eyewitnesses” and lack independent capabilities. Similarly, the illusion of NGO “balance” and political neutrality continues among journalists – in July 2007, a reporter wrote “During the [2006] war, Human Rights Watch issued several reports criticizing both sides.” A simple review of these reports demonstrates the one-sided condemnations of Israel. However, serious journalists are starting to look beyond the “halo effect”, as in the case Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post, who exposed HRW’s biases, and in the Economist, which took on Amnesty.

The fact that the "halo effect" is starting to lose its shine may be part of HRW's larger problem. Another article by NGO-Monitor reports that:

While still a political superpower with a massive budget, HRW has reportedly lost some important donors, and [Executive Director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth] Roth is coming for another attempt to salvage his reputation and his position.

Indeed, HRW may have come out with a condemnation of Hezbollah, but apparently Roth is not done with Israel. He will be speaking next week at Hebrew University.

Ken Roth, the perennial leader of Human Rights Watch, attacks Israel with great regularity, but only spends little time here, and his knowledge is superficial and highly distorted. His next foray is scheduled for September 6 2007, when he will speak on “The 2006 Israel Hezbollah War: The Real Reason Civilians Died”.

The presumptuous headline notwithstanding, neither Roth nor HRW have the capability to determine “real reasons” nor distinguish “civilians” from terrorists. On the contrary, HRW is a political organization whose officials regularly exploit the language of human rights to demonize Israel (and other democracies involved in terror conflicts), as demonstrated in NGO Monitor’s detailed reports, and confirmed in the Washington Post, Wall St. Journal, the Weekly Standard, and elsewhere.

...On the substance, expect Roth to again cite “eyewitnesses” (probably Hezbollah operatives since no one else could move freely in Southern Lebanon), low-credibility journalists using the same sources, and HRW’s “researchers” to support false claims that Israel responded “indiscriminately” to Hezbollah’s attacks. According to almost daily HRW press statements during the war, the Israel Air Force only struck at areas free of Hezbollah forces. Detailed photos and other verifiable information exposed HRW’s fabrications and lack of credibility, including claims of an Israeli attack on an ambulance.

It's nice that HRW has condemned Hezbollah, but let's not recognize what HRW is and the damage they have done.

Technorati Tag: HRW and Human Rights Watch and Kenneth Roth.