Why We Report on 'Open' Societies (HRW)

[Violet_Crumble]

Responding to Robert Bernstein's NYT op-ed


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 believe that the human rights records of "closed" societies are the only ones deserving scrutiny. If that were the case, we would not work on US abuses in Guantanamo Bay, police abuse in Brazil, the "untouchables" in India, or migrants in South Africa. "Open" societies and democracies commit human rights abuses, too, and Human Rights Watch has an important role to play in documenting those abuses and pressing for their end.

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. Furthermore, our Middle East division is only one of 16 research programs at Human Rights Watch. The work on Israel is a tiny fraction of Human Rights Watch's work as a whole.

It is not the case that Human Rights Watch had "no access to the battlefield" after the Israeli operation in Gaza in January 2009. Although the Israeli government denied us access, our researchers entered Gaza via the border with Egypt and conducted extensive interviews with victims, eyewitnesses, United Nations officials, local authorities, and others. As in war zones around the world, we also visited attack sites, analyzed ballistics evidence, photographed wounds, and examined autopsy and other medical reports.

Mr. Bernstein brought his concerns about our work on Israel to a full meeting of the Human Rights Watch Board of Directors in April. The board unanimously rejected his view that Human Rights Watch should report only on closed societies, and expressed its full support for the organization's work.

Human Rights Watch stands fully behind the work we have done on Israel and around the world.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/20/why-we-report-open-societies

[azurnoir]

1. It is utterly ridiculous for HRW to not report on

"open societies" if they are indeed so open then one would you think that such reports would be welcomed, but methinks that in reality there was only one "open society" that this is being referred to here

[TomClash]

2. Here's the HRW Letter to the Editor in today's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/opinion/l21israel.html

Right below Jane Olson's fine letter is the standard Israeli Embassy form letter signed by the Dynamic Duo - Deshowitz the Defamer and the Elie Weisel.

[shira]

3. what a lame and disingenuous response by HRW...

1. HRW claims Bernstein wrote that only closed societies deserve scrutiny, but Bernstein never wrote any such thing - only that the disproportionate attention given to Israel (an open society) dwarfs that given to closed societies who are FAR worse violators than Israel.

2. HRW says they do not devote more time to Israel than other countries, but they do. Israel receives more attention than any other individual country from HRW in their region (Bernstein's claim). When all ME countries are combined, HRW devotes more attention to all those countries combined than they do Israel but that's not what Bernstein claimed.

3. HRW had no access to the Gaza battlefield during the conflict (Bernstein's claim). Afterwards they did, but that's not Bernstein's claim. HRW was limited in its ability to know what really happened during the war.

=========

Therefore, HRW did not respond directly and honestly to Bernstein's concerns.

Par for the course.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. A few corrections and comments...

HRW claims Bernstein wrote that only closed societies deserve scrutiny, but Bernstein never wrote any such thing

Here's where Bernstein said it in his op-ed. 'Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters.' And throughout the rest of his op-ed, he attacks HRW for failing to distinguish between open and closed societies.

When all ME countries are combined, HRW devotes more attention to all those countries combined than they do Israel but that's not what Bernstein claimed.

It's six of one, half dozen of the other, and proof of how utterly obsessed with semantics folks like yrself are. If Israel is only a fraction of what's written about when it comes to the ME, then that's good enough....

HRW had no access to the Gaza battlefield during the conflict (Bernstein's claim). Afterwards they did, but that's not Bernstein's claim. HRW was limited in its ability to know what really happened during the war.

What a load of bullshit from both Bernstein and yrself. He didn't say 'during the conflict', and if HRW were to not report on anything where they weren't present DURING the actual conflict (and I seem to recall that investigators were there during the last days of OCL), there'd be a long list of things they wouldn't have reported on in the past. As HRW point out in their response: 'It is not the case that Human Rights Watch had "no access to the battlefield" after the Israeli operation in Gaza in January 2009. Although the Israeli government denied us access, our researchers entered Gaza via the border with Egypt and conducted extensive interviews with victims, eyewitnesses, United Nations officials, local authorities, and others. As in war zones around the world, we also visited attack sites, analyzed ballistics evidence, photographed wounds, and examined autopsy and other medical reports.'

Also, I wonder if anyone else noticed that while Bernstein attacks HRW for apparently not being there on the spot, immediately afterwards in his op/ed, he goes on to quote someone who hasn't been in Gaza as an authority on what happened: 'But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”'

[shira]

5. those aren't corrections

1. Here's what HRW said:

"Human Rights Watch does not believe that the human rights records of “closed” societies are the only ones deserving scrutiny."

HRW attempted dishonestly to rebut a claim Bernstein never made.

===================

2. If devoting less time to Israel than all other ME countries is good enough for you, that's fine. But HRW should have said it's good enough they condemn all other ME countries combined more than Israel rather than resort to another red-herring...responding to something Bernstein never claimed in the first place.

===================

3. Bernstein wrote HRW had no access to the battlefield (during the conflict) and HRW didn't dispute that...

"It is not the case that Human Rights Watch had “no access to the battlefield” after the Israeli operation in Gaza in January 2009."

Of course they had access afterwards, so what? Once again they are trying to respond to criticism with disingenuous red-herrings, pretending to counter Bernstein directly.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. What yr claiming isn't correct

1. Of course mr bernsteins argument is that the violations of 'open societies' should be overlooked in favour of those of 'closed' ones. If that wasn't what he was arguing then he wouldn't have made that statement about the founding mission of hrs.

2. I've just checked btw and ther are more reports about Iraq than Israel and the occupied territories combined.

3. You falsely claimed mr Bernstein said something he didn't. Plus overlook that the person he quotes as an aithoity on what happened in gaza hasn't been to gaza.

[shira]

7. no, you're wrong

1. He wrote about closed societies...

"The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel."

He never wrote that Israel's violations should be overlooked, only that HRW's disproportionate focus, time, and energy on Israel leads to less time and energy devoted to the rights of others (like in Egypt or Syria). That's a valid observation. In Gaza alone, children are used in combat roles and brainwashed to become intolerant antisemitic warmongers by Hamas. Hamas hid under the hospital during the operation and deliberately mixed with civilians. HRW ignores things like these and instead focuses on 'facts' that Goldstone admits are worthless as evidence in a court of law.

That should be enough to rumple the feathers of any true liberal committed to human rights.

=========

2. About Iraq, is that over the last year, 5 years, 10 years - and is all the criticism aimed at the government or terrorist factions? The fact is that HRW pretends Israel violates human rights on a larger scale than any of its surrounding neighbors, and we know that's ridiculous...not to mention that those being violated might benefit due to more attention from HRW if not for their irrational focus on Israel, which already has dozens of human rights organizations up to the task of keeping Israel in line.

What appears lost on you is that Israel already has built-in, highly critical mechanisms in place (especially their own media) that is as effective or more effective than anything HRW is capable of with their reports (which serve to demonize and do nothing more than Israel's own human rights organizations)).

Closed societies have no checks and balances.

There's no use pretending more attention must be focused on Israel than any other neighboring state.

=========

3. Mr. Bernstein made a great point that HRW failed to address and it is...

"In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes."

That's 100% spot-on, and HRW made 'definitive judgments' nonetheless based on 'facts' that wouldn't hold up in a court of law....of course while ignoring Hamas' greatest human rights violations (those ignored in the Goldstone Report that they wholeheartedly endorse).

I'm not sure why you've decided to focus on my statement "during the conflict".

And while bringing up Kemp is a good point, that just goes to show how weak and unreliable HRW's claims are in comparison. The fact is Kemp's observation is demonstrably more honest and accurate than HRW's claims in general. It says a lot when a British commander concedes that Israel's forces are more humane than any others he knows of, including his own.

========

HRW failed to address many of Bernstein's points and then decided to respond to statements he never made.

Very lame.

Very dishonest.

Seems more and more people are onto their games.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. No, the problem is that as usual that yr showing an inability to comprehend simple sentences...

1. Are you incapable of reading simple sentences and understanding them? What is there about the sentence I posted where he said what he claimed the founding mission of HRW was that yr just not getting? The whole point of the thing was that he wanted attention diverted away from Israel to what he called 'closed societies'.

2. You and before you, bernstein, made a false claim about Israel being reported on more than any other country in the Middle East. Not sure why now yr trying to make excuses and ask idiotic questions that have nothing to do with the original dishonest claim, nor why yr trying to go off on tangents and talk about something else entirely. I'm just correcting you on the three completely false claims that you made originally, so try to focus, okay?

3. HRW did have investigors in Gaza both during and after OCL, so yet again another claim by yrself was shown to be complete bullshit. 'The fact is Kemp's obervation..' WTF? Yr opinions aren't facts, and basing *honesty* on whether you like what someone says or not is incredibly simple-minded. You can't use the argument that someone wasn't in Gaza coz they're critical of the IDF, and then ignore that another person wasn't in Gaza because they're saying what you want them to hear...

What's lame and dishonest is yr continual desire to twist what others say, as you've exhibited so well in this thread....

[shira]

9. HRW failed to respond to many of Bernstein's points and decided to respond to points he never made

HRW can dish it out but apparently cannot handle self-criticism.

It's a shame you blindly support further HRW irrational criticism of Israel when so much of that disproportionate time and energy wasted by HRW could be spent working for human rights in surrounding mideast nations that HRW has long ignored, minimized, and put less effort in.

My questions about Iraq still stand. My bet is HRW has focused more on Israel the past decade than the Iraqi government. Prove me wrong.

As for Kemp, I'm up for debating whether his observations are more credible than HRW's 'facts' which Goldstone says wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. You repeating the same crap again and again doesn't make it true...

You are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending what you read, which is yr problem to get sorted out, not anyone elses...

Blind support and irrationality is yr thing, not mine, so stop projecting yr own weaknesses onto other people...

If you ask moronic and irrelevent questions, they will stand. You made a completely false claim about HRW reporting on ME countries and are now trying to change the goalposts into it being something different than what you originally claimed....

On Kemp - I'll say again what you totally ignored in the post you just replied to: ''The fact is Kemp's obervation..' WTF? Yr opinions aren't facts, and basing *honesty* on whether you like what someone says or not is incredibly simple-minded. You can't use the argument that someone wasn't in Gaza coz they're critical of the IDF, and then ignore that another person wasn't in Gaza because they're saying what you want them to hear...' What about that isn't sinking in?

[shira]

11. it's very true and you're ignoring it....HRW really didn't address Bernstein's points

1. The fact is that the salient points in Bernstein's letter were left unanswered or misrepresented by HRW.

2. Bernstein's point about disproportionate coverage by HRW on Israel stands. HRW pretends by misrepresenting Bernstein's claim that they do not focus on Israel more than any other individual countries. We know this is not true. You support HRW all the way. You have never once criticized anything they do. Therefore, their obsession with Israel, to the point of minimizing and ignoring much that is wrong in that region, is okay with you. AFAIK, there is no problem with HRW focusing more on Israel to the point that much is ignored in that region. If this was a problem, I'm sure you'd let us all know.

3. Where's your proof that HRW puts more work and time into criticizing the Iraqi govt. for human rights violations than Israel? How about a link and a short description of what you think proves HRW focuses more on the Iraqi govt than Israel. Prove that Bernstein is wrong, if you can. Or at the very least, admit that besides Iraq, HRW focuses more on Israel than any other neighboring Arab governments.

4. Kemp did not make definitive judgments about war crimes like HRW did. HRW lacked access to the actual battlefield and the commanders who made certain decisions. They cannot claim to know the IDF's motivations and come to knee-jerk conclusions that Israel deliberately committed war crimes (or that Israel intentionally started OCL to punish Gazans). This seems lost on you for some reason. HRW made conclusions based on 'facts' that cannot be proven in any credible court of law. Kemp's assertions can easily be proven. See the difference yet?

[Violet_Crumble]

12. You repeating the same crap again and again doesn't make it true...

Seeing as how yr very intent on totally ignoring what's said to you, here's what you ignored.

You are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending what you read, which is yr problem to get sorted out, not anyone elses...

Blind support and irrationality is yr thing, not mine, so stop projecting yr own weaknesses onto other people...

If you ask moronic and irrelevent questions, they will stand. You made a completely false claim about HRW reporting on ME countries and are now trying to change the goalposts into it being something different than what you originally claimed....

On Kemp - I'll say again what you totally ignored in the post you just replied to: ''The fact is Kemp's obervation..' WTF? Yr opinions aren't facts, and basing *honesty* on whether you like what someone says or not is incredibly simple-minded. You can't use the argument that someone wasn't in Gaza coz they're critical of the IDF, and then ignore that another person wasn't in Gaza because they're saying what you want them to hear...' What about that isn't sinking in?

[shira]

13. You resorting to mockery and abuse is not a substantive reply.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. No, what I did was repost the post you totally ignored...

You want to ignore what's said in posts to you, that's yr problem to get sorted out, not mine. My very low opinion of yr ability to constructively contribute to this forum remains unchanged, and seeing as how yr not willing or capable of taking the hint that it'd be best for you to put me on ignore, I'll take care of it from this end and that way you can continue to ignore anything I say and create yrself an 'argument' out of views I don't hold or things I've never said, and I can concentrate on having constructive and rational discussions with other folk in this forum, many of whom I strongly disagree with when it comes to aspects of the I/P conflict, but who share with me (to varying degrees) a desire for a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict where two independent and viable states exist side by side and where the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are protected and considered to be of equal value....

[shira]

15. translation....you can't admit you're wrong, you screech, you give up and quit

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Rights group denies Israel bias

A leading human rights group has rejected a claim by its founder that it is biased against Israel.

Robert Bernstein said Human Rights Watch had strayed from its original mandate to scrutinise closed societies, not democracies like Israel.

In an article in the New York Times, he said the organisation had helped to turn Israel into a pariah state.

In response, Human Rights Watch said its reporting on Israel was only a tiny fraction of its work.

The organisation has accused Israel of committing war crimes during its attack on Gaza earlier this year.

Mr Bernstein, who was chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998, said the group had been set up to pry open closed societies and advocate basic freedoms, and therefore had drawn a distinction between democratic and non-democratic states.

"Now the organisation, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies," he said.

"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," Mr Bernstein wrote.

He accused Human Rights Watch of losing "critical perspective" in the Middle East conflict.

"Only 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," he wrote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8320013.stm