The "Swiftboating" of Human Rights Watch

Last week witnessed a concerted attack against the credibility of the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), seeking to link supposed fundraising activities in Saudi Arabia with that organization's criticism ("bias", according to its detractors) of Israeli practices in the occupied territories, also claiming HRW is soft peddling on Saudi violations. It started in a Wall Street Journal piece, the Israeli prime minister's office and spokespeople weighed in, and then AIPAC and the rightwing blogosphere got onboard. The attack on HRW has now been ratcheted up according to last week's Jerusalem Post.

The former right-wing Israeli Government Minister, Natan Sharansky (also an ex-Prisoner of Zion, President George W. Bush's favorite author and occupation apologist) claims that HRW "has become a tool in the hands of dictatorial regimes to fight against democracies." Ron Dermer, director of policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office adds: "We are going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups; we are not going to be sitting ducks in a pond for the human rights groups to shoot at us with impunity".

The apparent trigger for this assault on a group that represents the global gold standard in human rights monitoring, analysis, and advocacy, was a visit by HRW's Middle East-North Africa director, Sarah Leah Whitson, to the Saudi kingdom. I happened to find myself on a panel at The Century Foundation discussing the Middle East with Whitson just days before this storm broke -- I went back and watched tapes of that panel discussion. To accuse Whitson of being soft on the Saudis or somehow singling out Israel for criticism is quite astonishing as I'm sure you'll agree if you take ten minutes to listen to her presentation -- of that, more in a moment.

According to reports Whitson was hosted one evening in Riyadh by prominent businessman and intellectual, Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan, for a private dinner which included business leaders, civil society leaders, and well-connected Saudis. It was not a fundraising event. HRW was certainly not fundraising from the Saudi government. Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent quotes Whitson--"We have never raised any money from the Saudi government or any other agency in the world." That HRW does not take government money is something that is already well-known.

HRW does, of course, receive contributions from individuals and foundations -- something that does not prevent them from producing releases and reports critical of the states from whence donors hail.

Does HRW's fundraising from private sources in the U.S. prevent it being critical of American human rights violations (and I obviously acknowledge the differences between the US and Saudi Arabia)? Apparently not. Yes, donors have agendas, but as long as the organization adheres to standards of fact-checking and objectivity, its credibility is sustained.

Sadly, these attacks on HRW demonstrate no such objectivity or credibility -- they come from a narrow and misguided right-wing Israel advocacy agenda. One group that has been plowing this terrain for some years is Gerald Steinberg's odiously named "NGO Monitor," in the attacks on HRW he is being joined by bigger guns. Steinberg accuses HRW of being "linked to the terrorist campaign" (of Hamas ...etc), and whines that "Human Rights Watch is an organization with a budget of $40 million a year; they are a superpower". Poor Mr. Steinberg, his supporters in the anti-HRW campaign over at AIPAC only had an "$80 million purse" at their disposal.

Ms. Whitson at HRW is not rolling over, this was her response: "Please, if there is something we got wrong, if one of the incidents or attacks we described is wrong, I would love to hear it. Because the Gerald Steinbergs of this world, and I guess now the Sharanskys of this world, love to give blanket denials, love to give blanket dismissals. But let's get down to the facts and let me know, did we get the fact wrong on any of these cases."

Whitson had also been accused of using HRW's criticism of Israel and the hits that it takes on that score in order to curry favor with potential Saudi backers. According to reports, Whitson discussed HRW's work on both Saudi practices and on the Israeli occupied territories among other issues. Jeffrey Goldberg in his Atlantic blog shares a thoughtful exchange on this with the executive director of HRW, Ken Roth.

I would suggest that Human Rights Watch is not at fault here, but rather those whose agenda is to smear its good name. The event held in Riyadh that has come under scrutiny is undoubtedly replicated by HRW in similar venues around the world and is crucial to their work in sensitizing elites -- especially in countries where violations occur -- to a broad human rights agenda, including its applicability to the venue in question.

The most perfunctory fact-checking debunks the claim of HRW having an anti-Israel obsession as being patently absurd. As Ali Gharib of IPS has pointed out, of more than 30 releases in June and July (so far) about the region, Israel was criticized three times, Saudi Arabia five times, and Iran on nine occasions.

And here's how cuddling up to the Saudis and perhaps even seeking private Saudi money led to self-censorship by Sarah Leah Whitson in her criticism of Saudi Arabia at that TCF event: Whitson attacked the lack of due process in the recent Saudi terror trials. She described Saudi Arabia, along with Syria and Libya, as being on the less free side in terms of "the most basic human rights" violations in the region. She attacked Saudi Arabia's lack of a penal code, and Whitson had this to say about women's rights in the kingdom: "Saudi Arabia is the absolute worst. Women are treated as legal minor, as children." Two of HRW's recent releases are about women's rights and domestic worker abuses in the kingdom.

So, why this coordinated attack on HRW all of a sudden? It pains me to say it, but this is all about Israel. The Israeli prime minister's office was shameless enough to announce that it has decided to wage a battle with human rights NGOs and started with Human Rights Watch. Prime Minister Netanyahu's spokesman, Mark Regev, (apparently without irony) accused HRW of having "seriously lost its moral compass."

AIPAC then promoted the attack on HRW. The timing is not a coincidence. Human Rights Watch, similar to other global, respected human rights NGOs, obviously follows developments in the occupied Palestinian territories and obviously had something to say about Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" in Gaza six months ago. Their recent Gaza report focused on the use or, rather, misuse of drones during these military attacks. Amnesty International has been similarly critical of the use of drones, asserting that Israeli forces did not employ insufficient care in preventing civilian casualties.

Or maybe, just maybe, something troubling from a human rights perspective might be taking place in Gaza and the rest of the occupied territories. This is a case of "shoot the messenger" on steroids. What happened to Gaza during Operation Cast Lead is being revealed not only by international sources, but also by Israeli sources, including this latest report from Israeli combat soldiers of the Breaking the Silence group, a collection of testimonies by Israeli combatants who served in Gaza.

Unfortunately, Israel did not -- as was recommended by Israeli human rights groups including B'tselem -- conduct its own credible state inquiry into the Gaza events. By leaving the Israeli Defense Forces to conduct their own cursory, closed, and, ultimately, not credible investigation, Israel has sent the signal to the international community, and notably to the human rights NGO community, that it will not do the job -- that they will have to.

The logic of Israel's continued occupation is such that the steps Israel is taking to maintain and entrench its presence in the territories are leading to ever-greater human rights violations. Often these practices are exposed, obviously human rights' NGO's do a lot of that exposing. In that context, one can expect the attacks on the human rights community to be ratcheted up. As Matt Yglesias has pointed out, there is "an increasing tendency by the Israeli government and by hawkish Jewish organizations to respond to criticism of Israel's human rights record by lashing out against human rights groups."

Attempts to defend the indefensible do not make for pretty viewing, even when beloved Israel is the subject (for another example see The Israel Project's recent defense of settlements in the West Bank). Surely, one can both be a supporter of Israel and it's security while at the same time, defending human rights by, for instance, advocating an end to the conflict, a two-state solution, and an end to the occupation. Surely, supporting Israel cannot be about undermining efforts to advance human rights around the world. That is not just fundamentally wrong, it strikes me as being fundamentally un-Jewish, and goes beyond the pale of what is legitimate or ethical.

Comments

[misaacm]

I see that Amnesty International just released a report on the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/world/middleeast/23amnesty.html?ref=world I notice that HRW has been silent on the topic. Draw your own conclusions.

[GrahamInCanada]

Oh, HP's moderator wouldn't post our conclusions, so unflattering are they towards you.

http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-africa/saudi-arabia

[GZLives]

You can't be a credible human rights organization and solicit money from one of the largest violators of human rights in the world.

Gee why would they spend most of their time going after Israel and not those cutting off hands and heads or stoning homosexuals ?

[GrahamInCanada]

Credibility is a two-edged sword.

For example, it is easily proved that the meeting in question was not a fund-raiser, and that HRW does not raise funds from any government at all, let alone Saudi Arabia.

That is why it is so self-destructive for Israel to launch this propaganda attack on its friends and bystanders. After failing to make peace with its neighbors all these generations, all Israel can cling to for hope is the dignity of credible good intent.

If you destroy Israel's credibility with such a nasty propaganda war against friends and bystanders, what hope has Israel got?

[GrahamInCanada]

It is one thing for Israel to launch a propaganda war amoungst enemies of Israel. That is a tool of war, and Israel of course declares that it is allowed to use all tools of war, and is seen to use prohibited tools of war, let alone legal ones, like propaganda.

It is another thing for Israel to launch a propaganda war against supporters of Israel, bystanders and onlookers, and against media and peaceful democracies and NGO's of all stripes. It is cowardly, self-destructive and unsustainable; and in the end, the behavior of treating friends and bystanders like enemies damages Israel more than any other actor.

JerryLevy, MemoryAlpha, and others in this thread act like members of Israel's paid and volunteer propaganda effort, and seem to be so blinded by the rules of the effort, that they don't realize they are doing far more damage to Israel than any admittance of human rights abuses might do to Israel.

After failing to make peace with its neighbors all these generations, all Israel can cling to for hope is the dignity of credible good intent. Jerry and Memory and their ilk are busy destroying that dignity and credibility with this blatant propaganda effort, transparent and sophomoric, eagerly killing Israel's support with the idea that they are defending Israel.

On the other hand, they provide an excellent reference source expounding on logical fallacies for sophomores; one could almost teach the entire repertoire of logical fallacies to undergraduates using just their posts.

[theaetetus]

typo: "Israeli forces did not employ insufficient care in preventing civilian casualties."

I think you mean "sufficient"

Great post.... Defending the indefensible indeed. I was in jerusalem in late december and i got hours and hours of people trying to justify the unjustifiable.

it just cant be done.

their propaganda is a well oiled machine however and they are not stopping it anytime soon.

[JerryLevy]

Why can't we get HRW and Amnesty International to loudly and pervasively and publicly criticize the worst human rights offense known to mankind over the last 15 years: SUICIDE TERRORISM. Amnesty International was silent in the late 1990s when the Palestinians launched their suicide terrorism campaign in Discos, Buses, Restaurants, and hotels. This "collective terror" against civilians did not reach the radar screens of AI or HRW for political reasons. Finally about five years later, AI issued a written statement condemning the brainwashing and teaching of children to commit mass murder through suicide. This appalling practice on the part of radical Islamic terrorists should be repeatedly and loudly criticized but these two organizations somehow do not find it overly offensive----unlike the death penalty for murderers in the United States which they always criticize.

[MemoryAlpha]

Query:
And how many people have died to suicide terrorism as opposed to cluster bombs?

[courtb]

Thousands. Thousands in America, hundreds in Israel, hundreds in Europe...thousands of Muslims in Iraq, thousands in Afghanistan.

The majority of the victims of suicide terrorism is actually other Muslims. The larger number of dead in Iraq now lays at the feet of suicide bombs of other Muslims.

[Williams1]

Contrary to the implication in the above comment, Human Rights Watch issued in 2002 a report on suicide bombings in Israel. It was entitled " Erased in a Moment: Suicide Bombing Attacks Against Israeli Civilians" and accused the perpetrators of suicide bombings of committing crimes against humanity. References to the report can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/01/world/rights-group-blames-arafat-for-not-halting-suicide-attacks.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/01/world/rights-group-blames-arafat-for-not-halting-suicide-attacks.html.

[MemoryAlpha]

Additional Observation:
The Palestinians have stopped using suicide bombings as a tactic, to boot.

[JerryLevy]

The suicide terrorism campaign started in 1995 during the Oslo negotiations. Thousands of innocents inside Israel died and HRW said nothing. Only after 7 years of this genocide did they finally offer one statement. Its like speaking out against the Darfur starting now. Shame on HRW

[Milrepa]

Sorry, but HRW is no longer a "Gold Standard", and the author's saying it is, shows his own bias. HRW began sensibly, and then veered far left (in the American-political sense of the word). Just because it's CALLED, "HRW", that doesn't mean it IS. HRW is WAY too superficial and timid to publicize atrocities toward the Uighurs or the Tibetans, for example. HRW needs to get the hell out of the Middle East, they don't know any more about it than anyone else.

[MemoryAlpha]

Recommendation:
Read before posting.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/04/19/nepal-stop-illegally-detaining-tibetans
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/09/07/chinese-targeting-eastern-tibetans
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/16/india-china-tibetans-human-rights-are-not-negotiable
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/09/behind-violence-xinjiang
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/10/china-security-build-foreshadows-large-scale-crackdown
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/04/10/china-religious-repression-uighur-muslims

[SelenicMagick]

Interesting... IF they are so "impartial" WHY precisely is it that they have failed to condemn the US Government a SINGLE time over the treatment of Native Americans BY the US Government?

SURELY there is nobody in the US who BELIEVES that it is "correct" treatment to commit systematic genocide of indigenous people in the US...

[MemoryAlpha]

Observation:
HRW is prioritizing on crimes against humanity that are still ongoing. They are not a historical research project.

Continued use of tired canard:
Hiding Israel behind the shadow of the US because it cannot stand on its own.

[BubbaC33]

The US government's ill treatment of Native Americans is hardly a matter of history. It is an on-going problem that has not stopped. But you'll write anything to justify attacks on Israel.

[brendanm]

They're also mysteriously silent on the Soviet Union and the Ottoman Empire.

[Jelperman]

When will they condemn Caesar's atrocities in Gaul?

[stardust835]

Thank you to the Huffington Post and this blogger for running this piece.
"The most perfunctory fact-checking debunks the claim of HRW having an anti-Israel obsession as being patently absurd. As Ali Gharib of IPS has pointed out, of more than 30 releases in June and July (so far) about the region, Israel was criticized three times, Saudi Arabia five times, and Iran on nine occasions."

I guess HRW didn't get the memo that NO ONE is allowed to criticize Israel. Right now, there is a law proposed that will take any public benefits/funding away from any group who talks about the Nakba or says that Israel is not democratic. (That's quite orwellian, you know, and shows how some right wing groups in Israel have completely lost touch with reality.) I always thought a democracy allowed you the freedom of speech to say it wasn't a democracy....not if the right wing in Israel gets their way. They'll make criticism illegal. Read more here. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101208.html

When I put HRW's record up against its right wing Israeli detractors when it comes to defending human rights (for all), I'm afraid HRW wins hands down. Guess its time for another donation.

[GZLives]

Where's HRW on this:

Jordanian authorities have started revoking the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians living in Jordan to avoid a situation in which they would be "resettled" permanently in the kingdom, Jordanian and Palestinian officials revealed on Monday.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443863400&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[MemoryAlpha]

Observation:
Almost certainly where they (and the UN) stand on Israel undertaking similar actions to deport individuals from Israel and the occupied territories.

[MemoryAlpha]

Follow-Up Observations:
Forthcoming.

Result of research:
This story shows up only at jpost.com as far as I can find. It does not even show up on any Palestinian news sources I can find.

Query:
Has anyone else located additional sources to verify this article?

[stardust835]

GZ, keep it straight. The smear campaign against HRW is about them being bought out by the Saudi govt., not Jordan! I know its hard to keep all those Arabs straight, but try.

Next deflection tactic, please. BTW- I think its wonderful that JPost is so concerned with the well being of the Palestinian diaspora. I can't wait for the next logical step- an editorial calling for an end to the settlements and occupation of the West Bank coupled with an end to the odious siege of Gaza. We're waiting!!!! C'mon JPost, advocate of human rights for Palestinians & GZ too.

[biwee]

Intelligent and informed people with access to the truth just do not believe Israel any more.
Too many lies too many times. Too many killings and too many coverups.

[bbrecht]

Well said, thank you. Israel has two choices: destroy the Palestinians or comply with human rights standards and international law-- and work towards peace. Guess which one they are choosing?

[courtb]

Daniel, I agree with your statement that if Israel wants to protect herself, then the gov't should stop allowing the IDF to do sham investigations of events in Gaza and of the actions of soldiers. But I feel it's one giant catch-22: Israel is afraid of such investigations because the international community uses such reports as "proof" that Israel is the worst country on the planet and should cease to exist...yet without such investigations, Israel hangs on to a negative perception and possibly exacerbates the situation even more.

That being said, don't you find some of these human rights groups problematic? Do you really think people such as Jimmy Carter can be honest brokers in the region? I mean, HRW got it wrong with Muhammad al-Dura and Ken Roth consistently goes to the media with incorrect information and fails to retract it when he is proven wrong. As for this situation, I honestly didn't pay it much mind until I stumbled across this: http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/fundraising_corruption_at_huma.php Certainly is something to think about....

[MemoryAlpha]

False Premise on your part:
That the Israel's existence hinges on its ability to commit war crimes unpunished.

[courtb]

Oh Alpha, you just have to comment on everything, don't you? No matter if what you say makes sense?

Where did I say Israel's existence hinges on its ability to commit war crimes unpunished? I believe I actually said that Israel needs to properly investigate it's military, did I not? How did you make such a giant leap to your conclusions?

[rudibass]

Volokh.com:

Okay, so I listened....

She spends approximately three minutes and thirty-five seconds describing Israel's alleged violations of international law and human rights. Her presentation of the relevant facts and relevant international law is tendentious in the extreme [Gaza is "occupied?" Israel "transferred" its population to the West Bank?]. She accuses Israel of apartheid. She consistently refers to the wars in Lebanon and Gaza as "Israel's wars," even though, obviously, they were fought against foes that were launching cross-border attacks against Israel's civilian population and which declare themselves to be at war with Israel. She accuses Israel of war crimes, including "indiscriminate" bombing of South Lebanon, which, given the law civilian casualty in the second Lebanon War--even Hezbollah puts the total in the high hundreds, while Israel says low hundreds out of a population of hundreds of thousands--from a nation with one of the most powerful air forces in the world, is absurd....

And after Whitson's several minute-long exhaustive survey of Israel's alleged sins, she spends approximately twelve seconds on Hamas and Hezbollah, and this is the total of what she said: "of course there are also violations of international humanitarian law by the armed groups that are fighting Israel, namely Hamas and Hezbollah, but of course there are armed groups that have been in conflict with them [sorry this isn't coherent--ed.]. And that's something Human Rights Watch has documented." That's it......

[rudibass]

How does Whitson's remarks in front of an American audience prove in any way, shape, or form, what she said in front of a Saudi audience?

I also note that Whitson states that "Israel's wars" and "Israel's occupation" are the primary source of the violation of international law in the region. That's not bias? First, why is it "Israel's wars?" Hezbollah started the first one, Hamas the second, by launching missiles, kidnapping soldiers, etc. Second, an occupation is not, per se, illegal, contrary to what Whitson suggests, and besides, Gaza is not "occupied." Third, re international law, what about Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia's support for terrorism and terrorist groups--a violation of the international treaty against terrorism. And she accurately states the law, that it's illegal to "transfer" population to an occupied territory, but Israel hasn't "transferred" anyway--they've moved their voluntarily, which may be unwise, but it's not illegal under international law.

[JerryLevy]

Read what the WSJ wrote about HRW, and draw your own conclusions as to whether it was proper for them to make an appeal to wealthy Saudis for money to help them criticize Israel. Personally, this reeks of a political action, not an unbiased human rights activity. But you decide:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html

[who38]

I thought Israel and the Saudis were the best of friends...­........we­ll ME friends. Not true?

[GrahamInCanada]

You beg the question.

WSJ made serious, unfounded, hysterical and dubious accusations without source or attribution against HRW, proporting to report what happened in Saudi Arabia without any witnesses, aimed not at supporters of HRW but at supporters of Israel in the US who might be wavering in the face of documented and serious Israeli violations of international law.

The question is not whether it was proper for HRW to act in the way the WSJ accused it of acting, the question is whether HRW acted in this way. It did not.

Read HRW:

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/84512

[JerryLevy]

That's interesting. The article specifically states Saudi government officials were at the fund raising conference. But HRW did not take any money directly from them. Indirectly by any chance? They were just meeting with Saudi citizens interested in human rights. OK, I was born yesterday.