Tag Archives: Bias

Did we ‘lynch the wrong guy’ at Human Rights Watch?

Watching the scandal spin out of control, Apkon took note of the irony that the pro-Israel community had lynched one of the people at HRW who was most sympathetic to its concerns. “You’re sitting there watching this, and you realize: They’re going after the wrong guy!”

garlasco-iron-cross Do y’all remember Marc Garlasco? He is (or was) the military analyst over at Human Rights Watch whose partiality with respect to reporting on Israel  was called into serious question via the revelation that he just happened to be an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia.

Robt_Bernstein_image_2639 A  report last week (yeah – I’ve been away) in The New Republic detailed some of the internal turmoil at HRW which eventually led to founder Robert Bernstein publicly distancing himself from the organization’s blatant hostility toward Israel. The report by Benjamin Birnbaum chronicles some of the behind the scenes activities which demonstrated a disturbing bias in its reporting, a bias that deeply conflicted with the principles of honesty that Bernstein had brought to the table when he began the organization over thirty years prior.

Birnbaum introduces a broader cast of rather disturbing characters such as Sarah Whitson, who keeps a movie poster in her office “that attempts [sic] to humanize Palestinian suicide bombers,” and who says in one breath that Hamas is wrong for making rocket targets (let alone human shields) out of civilians, and in the next breath that “no one can deny that the pain and destruction that Israel causes cannot be compared to what Hamas is doing.”

Or take Norm Finkelstein, an “avowed Hezbollah supporter who has likened Israel to Nazi Germany,” and who prosecuted a successful campaign to extract an official apology for a press release critical of Palestinian officers.

Goldstone-at-UNHRC-WEB The infamous Richard Goldstone is also cited by Birnbaum as agreeing with Whitson and HRW executive director Ken Roth that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats to “wipe Israel off the map” were not something worthy of any special attention. They had other fish to fry, you see.

Birnbaum touches as well on some of the other ways a pervasive anti-Israel attitude generally made itself felt at HRW. HRW’s grossly disproportionate reportage of alleged Israeli abuses while giving relatively minimal attention to the far more excessive abuses practiced by regimes such as Libya, Syria, or Iran is characterized by one of their own members as going after the “low-hanging fruit.” In other words, it’s easy to pick on Israel – not so easy to penetrate Iran.

Birnbaum notes HRW’s report on Israel’s 2002 anti-terrorist operation in Jenin deftly ignored Israel’s decision not to use aerial bombardment in order to greatly reduce the potential for civilian casualties, at the cost of greater casualties among its own military personnel. That sort of information defeats the organization’s purpose of demonizing Israel, in case you can’t tell.

Other occasions are cited by Birnbaum where HRW withheld critical information or simply misreported key factual details. Accuracy in reporting does not appear to hold a high priority at HRW.

Birnbaum went on to some length illustrating the gross bias on the part of the organization, but I was caught by surprise as he turned his attention to the Garlasco affair. Not that I was surprised when he delved into it, but that his characterization of it drew a picture indicating Garlasco was really not nearly so much a sworn enemy of Israel as were others within the establishment. Birnbaum’s interviews with advisory committee member Steve Apkon brought out some interesting – and possibly mitigating – details about Garlasco’s background and viewpoints. Even his pre-occupation with Nazi artifacts can be seen in a different light if you consider what Apkon says about Garlasco’s relatively narrow focus as a military analyst. Did he report unfavorably on Israeli activites, as part and parcel of his employment? Yes, of course he did. But Apkon also brings up some things that we didn’t know about Garlasco. That, for instance, owing to his military experience, he at times expressed sympathy for Israeli soldiers with regard to the no-win predicaments in which they continually find themselves. Or that he also (if perhaps too quietly to make an impact) pointed out discrepancies in the way his bosses handled the issue of white phosphorous in combat. He knew it was used not only by Israel, but by the U.S. and Britain, and that it did not necessarily imply a misuse of military technology. Or that in general Garlasco expressed some degree of frustration with HRW’s seeming inability (or unwillingness) to acknowledge even the very complexity of war. Birnbaum cites Apkon as going so far as to say Garlasco had already been considering leaving HRW when the scandal broke. The notoriety gained by the exposure of his odd proclivities apparently did little more than to seal the deal.

Do I think Garlasco got a raw deal out of the whole matter? I suppose that depends on whether he ultimately suffered from the exposure, and whether the exposure was uncalled for. My purpose at the time that I  participated in that exposure (not that I harbor illusions of having made a significant impact) was, and still is, to shed light wherever I can into dark corners wherever I spot them. Or to be at least another relay point in the transmission of information when someone else has turned the lights on. And in that, I am convinced more than ever that Human Rights Watch has a lot of dark corners needing illumination.

Comments Off on Did we ‘lynch the wrong guy’ at Human Rights Watch?

Filed under Perspectives, World against Israel

Moral Failure of Human Rights Watch Organization Condemned by Founder

I’VE COMMENTED BEFORE on the depraved anti-Semitism characterizing the work of the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch.  What I did not know until today is that the founder of the group  resigned eleven years ago, and it has been since that time that HRW has taken such a wrong turn.

Mr. Robert. L. Bernstein has just published a strongly worded criticism of HRW — and a call for the organization he founded to return to its original humanitarian mission — in a New York Times op-ed column, explaining why he has concluded that HRW has lost the credibility it once had.  It is obviously difficult for Mr. Bernstein to expose in this way the dismal shortcomings of the institution which he helped birth, and upon which he lavished twenty years of his life.  He is to commended for taking this public step.  Read more here.

Comments Off on Moral Failure of Human Rights Watch Organization Condemned by Founder

Filed under Perspectives, World against Israel

The roots of the anti-Israel bias at “Human Rights Watch” go deep.

"The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so cool!"

Hardly something we wanted to hear from a senior military analyst at a prestigious human rights organization.

Yet this was expressed in a blog post by Human Rights Watch senior analyst Marc Garlasco, as cited in ICEJ News for Sept. 15.  It turns out Garlasco is an avid collector of WWII Nazi memorabilia.  Very avid.

Now at this point, a normal reaction might be something like, “Uh, so what?” 

But, aye, there’s the rub, as Prince of Denmark might say.  A person’s off duty proclivities to collect memorabilia of whatever sort shouldn’t affect his day job, should they?  But they might offer insight into his personality.  If the guy were an accountant at Bear Stearns, I don’t see what difference it would make what he does in his off hours, but when he works as a senior analyst at an organization whose stated purpose is a dedication to “defending and protecting human rights” (HRW About Us page), and when said organization self-righteously asserts an adherence to "rigorous, objective investigations,” and (this is the critical part) when said organization has regularly blazed new trails in anti-Semitism, then you just have to stop and wonder if maybe there is a connection.

Now I’m not going to say that HRW hired Garlasco in order to make use of his apparent fascination with the Third Reich, or even that HRW had given any thought at all to his unusual interests.  But I am saying that, given their task, they really should have taken into consideration whether such a mind set could cloud his judgment, particularly with regard to writing reports concerning the modern Jewish nation of Israel. 

The Human Rights Watch organization really, really should have taken these things into consideration, if they were at all concerned with objectivity, as they say they are.

But you see, that’s the problem.  HRW has consistently demonstrated a strong – I would even say vindictive – bias against the Jewish state.  NGO Monitor  (a truth seeking organization which I consider a true ball carrier, if I may use my football analogy), puts the matter rather nicely in their detailed report Experts or Ideologues? A Systematic Analysis of Human Rights Watch’s Focus on Israel:

Our investigation shows a consistent pattern of ideological bias, lack of professional qualifications, and unsupported claims based on faulty evidence and analysis on the part of HRW.

So, back to Mr. Garlasco.  Do you think maybe his fondness for the legacy of Adolf, Herrmann, Heinrich & company were somehow missed by an employer which regularly attacks the modern state that grew out of the ashes of that legacy?  I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

I’m trying to keep this simple, so anyone can see through the fog and notice there is something seriously wrong here.  The controversy surrounding Garlasco’s work at HRW, the organization’s tepid response, and a more detailed discussion of the whole sordid affair can be found at NGO Monitor and in several fine blogs better than this one. I particularly suggest Omri Ceren’s Mere Rhetoric blog; also Elder of Ziyon is an excellent source for information of this sort.

I’m just trying to add one more shoulder to the push.  If we keep pressing for the truth, something is going to move.

lineman

1 Comment

Filed under World against Israel

How long will it take us to catch on?

The “peace loving” Palestinian leaders are anything but. Peace loving, or leaders.

There is a whole lot of great stuff coming out of this week’s Fatah convention in Bethlehem (yes, Bethlehem).

They nearly tore each other apart, because, well, that’s what they do. The Saudis were begging them to settle down & behave, because they were giving the Arab cause a bad name. (Giving?) They are completely divided, they always have been completely divided, and there is no sign it will be anything different in our lifetimes. Yet the US government keeps telling us that they are all in one accord, and just want to make peace with Israel and have their own country and settle down and live happily ever after.

Umm – but what are they saying about their intentions?

Fatah will continue to sacrifice victims until Jerusalem will be returned, clean of settlements and settlers

(Israel National News, Fatah: PA Will Take All of Jerusalem – by Peace or by Force)

See? This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. Of course, that’s also why they say things like,

Although we have chosen peace, we maintain the right to launch an armed resistance…

They do this because they know the drill – keep saying you want peace, in the same sentence you say the opposite, and the poor dupes in the western media will buy right into it.

But not all of us are dupes, are we?

Spread the word; block the lies.

lineman

Comments Off on How long will it take us to catch on?

Filed under Palestinian Prevarication, World against Israel

Human Rights Watch: can’t they help it?

Hamas supporters burn Israeli flags; photo credit: Sydney Morning Herald

It’s a peculiar thing I’ve noticed about people who are in the habit of deceiving others: they themselves are often much more easily deceived. I encountered an extreme case of this while working for a private security company some years back.

There is a surprising amount of wiggle room regarding truthful reporting in the private security field, one reason being that night patrols are not necessarily intended to protect anyone or anything. They often (though not always) exist merely in order to qualify for insurance coverage. If XYZ Semiconductor Co can show ACME Insurance Co that they have a regular nighttime security patrol checking for potential fire situations, then XYZ Semiconductor can get fire protection from ACME Insurance. The problem is, sometimes all ACME requires from XYZ is a daily report written by some poor guy in a uniform stating that he did indeed perform his required rounds. If the guy writes the report, it doesn’t matter if he did what he says he did, or not. This isn’t always the case, nor even is it the norm, but I have encountered it.

So about that time I had a supervisor (I’ll call him “Don”) who was really bad. He seemed to be completely incapable of telling the truth – about pretty much anything. I mean, if he had coffee on his break, he’d be compelled to say he had tea. Let’s just say he and I didn’t hit it off very well. I didn’t really like the job, anyway, but I had this penchant for honesty, so I made sure I always told the truth, especially around him. Now – stay with me on this – Don’s problem was so ingrained that he could not for the life of him imagine that others were not like him. He expected everyone around him to be liars, so he didn’t know quite what to do with an honest person. Well, he thought he knew what to do. In his mind, the person couldn’t possibly be honest, so he had to figure what the real truth was behind whatever they said. Like if I had coffee on my break, and said so, he’d go nuts trying to find out what I’d really had. I had a lot of fun with that, poor fellow. I wasn’t being nice – just honest. And I didn’t keep the job.

All this came back to mind while reading NGO Monitor’s counter-analysis of a Human Rights Watch report from June 30th, determining (to HRW’s satisfaction, anyway) that Gaza civilians had been killed during Operation Cast Lead by missiles launched from IDF drone aircraft. The problem is, the entire report is based on speculation and unverified testimony from those who were the least motivated to be truthful. Oh, give me a break! I’d love to give line by line details here, but I’d just be duplicating NGO Monitor’s excellent job: read it here. Or, if you think NGO Monitor is not fairly portraying the HRW report, you can get it here. I looked at it, and I could hardly believe my eyes.

Now, I do want to think that HRW really has a wicked agenda to destroy Israel with propaganda and whatever outright lies they can come up with, and that’s probably true, but I have to wonder if maybe they really did believe what they were told by untruthful “witnesses” (who, of course, were not necessarily there), being themselves fundamentally dishonest and ready to believe in another deception. Poor fellows. But this is too serious to have fun with.

lineman

Comments Off on Human Rights Watch: can’t they help it?

Filed under World against Israel