HRW founder and long time chairman: HRW is anti-Israel

[Beowulf]

Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast

By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN
Published: October 19, 2009

AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

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.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. 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.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

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.”

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. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of Random House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.

[Samuel]

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

Did it work? Also why would drawing a line be more effective than using the same standard for all nations?

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent.

Why is Israel being compared to its neighbors? If we go that route that Russia is a great place to live! It is near Belarus, China, North Korea, Uzbeckistan...

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.

The same reason that other nations in Africa were ignored in comparison to South Africa in the 80s. Sure others may be worse, but this nation can be changed by international pressure.

are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Er... doesn't Iran let Jews live inside its border? Isn't there a famous picture of its president (the one who declared they would destroy Israel) smiling and shaking hands with a Jewish speaker who belonged to a group opposed to the nation of Israel.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I wonder if the author sometimes attempts to neglect the fact that all things considered, the USSR provided for its citizens a fairly good education system along with a pension system. Of course there were some freedoms which were stifled, but which democracy doesn't to an extent?

[Elfdart]

I'm flabbergasted! Who would have thought that the New York Times would give Op-Ed space to a dishonest fanwhore apologist for Israel? The column is nothing but a rancid bouillabaisse made of red herrings marinated in horseshit.

Whether it's HRW, Amnesty or Btselem, or the Goldstone Report, you'll notice that Israel's groupies (mostly Americans) don't even try to refute the evidence of war crimes. So they whine that everyone is "biased" against Israel, or they're anti-Semites (or if Jewish, "self-hating Jews"). The fact that Netanyahu wants the laws of war changed to make the slaughter of civilians (like the Gaza Massacre) legal proves that such atrocities are official policy for Israel, just like kidnapping and torture are for the US.

The real double standard is on the part of some American liberals who, when it comes to Israel, are about as "liberal" as Franco.

[Edi]

Elfdart nails it right on the head. That article is nothing but tripe and someone (apparently Jewish person if the name is anything to go by) getting his panties in a twist when a nominally Western country is subjected to the same standards of assessment as the other nations he so decries as bad.

The problem is that there is largely no debate that the human rights record of Iran, the old Soviet Union, China, Myanmar and other places are pretty abysmal and that this was not a good thing. Whereas Israel has a shit human rights record despite its relatively free press and the other factors Bernstein names and there is an active whitewashing of its actions on multiple fronts.

So fuck him and the horseturd he rode in on.

[Rogue 9]

I wonder if the author sometimes attempts to neglect the fact that all things considered, the USSR provided for its citizens a fairly good education system along with a pension system. Of course there were some freedoms which were stifled, but which democracy doesn't to an extent?

Am I reading this correctly? Are you actually attempting to draw moral equivalence between the Soviet Union, an autocratic, single-party entity which falsely imprisoned and wantonly murdered tens of millions of its own citizens for political purposes, and Western democracies which... simply do no such thing?

[Darth Yan]

As a democracy, Israel should try to live up to our standards (which they don't.) At least autocratic dictatorships have an excuse.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Am I reading this correctly? Are you actually attempting to draw moral equivalence between the Soviet Union, an autocratic, single-party entity which falsely imprisoned and wantonly murdered tens of millions of its own citizens for political purposes, and Western democracies which... simply do no such thing?

You mean no one did that sort of crap back before the 50s in Europe and America? Practically every part of the world had some eugenics program and what not in those days. Let's take also the bombing of Serbia etc. in recent times which resulted in significant economic damage to Serbia and surrounding countries while whitewashing known atrocities on both sides of the equation. I highly doubt anybody can claim to be a saint, and the American government more often than not, allows Israel to get away with bloody murder more often than not.

[Julhelm]

I wonder if the author sometimes attempts to neglect the fact that all things considered, the USSR provided for its citizens a fairly good education system along with a pension system. Of course there were some freedoms which were stifled, but which democracy doesn't to an extent?

Am I reading this correctly? Are you actually attempting to draw moral equivalence between the Soviet Union, an autocratic, single-party entity which falsely imprisoned and wantonly murdered tens of millions of its own citizens for political purposes, and Western democracies which... simply do no such thing?

The USSR wasn't like under Stalin for the majority of the Cold War, you know.

[Rye]

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

Clearly, anyone complaining about Bloody Sunday is an Anglophobe. We shouldn't expect modern countries to behave morally, and we should excuse them when they don't, because they're not as bad as various terror groups, or maybe nazis and commies. Motivation matters when human rights are being violated? Uh, no, it shouldn't.

The fact perfect options are not always available doesn't mean people shouldn't be assailed for making the "least worst" choice when it's still got nasty outcomes. Take the ticking bomb scenario. Would you torture someone if it had a better chance of working than anything else? Shoot the terrorist's family? I would. And I'd go to prison for it. It'd be worth killing a family and going to prison to stop a nuke going off in a town centre. My crime should still be punished and known to the public, though.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder if the author sometimes attempts to neglect the fact that all things considered, the USSR provided for its citizens a fairly good education system along with a pension system. Of course there were some freedoms which were stifled, but which democracy doesn't to an extent?

Am I reading this correctly? Are you actually attempting to draw moral equivalence between the Soviet Union, an autocratic, single-party entity which falsely imprisoned and wantonly murdered tens of millions of its own citizens for political purposes, and Western democracies which... simply do no such thing?

That's an interesting point. You're right in stating that western democracies treat their citizens better. But that's the rub, isn't it? It's not that they treat human beings better, just their citizens. There is a long history of western democracies doing terrible things to people who were not deemed citizens. Black slaves, for example. Native Americans. Black people in general, up to the 1960s. Foreigners who have something we want. In fact, it's no exaggeration to say that many millions were killed or brutalized with little or no regret. But they're not citizens, so they don't count.

[Serafina]

Replace "citizens" with "voters", and you've got it.

[MKSheppard]

The fact that Netanyahu wants the laws of war changed to make the slaughter of civilians (like the Gaza Massacre) legal proves that such atrocities are official policy for Israel, just like kidnapping and torture are for the US.

The popularly accepted Conventions of Land Warfare do need to be revised, now that straight up armed conflict between two states is a rare thing, and that warfare between a uniformed state and a non-uniformed, non-state actor is going to dominate conventional warfare for the forseeable future.

[MKSheppard]

Then again, Israel (like the US) does not recognize many of the protocols that were added to Geneva after the 1949 Convention.

Even under the restrictive 1977 Protocols I and II to Geneva; you're given a lot of leeway in military targeteering; for military operations are NOT forbidden if they cause great amounts of civilian casualties.

What they mean is that you must follow the following steps:

Step 1.) Is this military operation truly necessary?
Step 2.) If so, is the objective legimitate?
Step 3.) Which method do we have available to us that causes the least amount of civilian casualties?

Nowhere does it say that a military operation must be abandoned or forbidden because of too many civilian casualties.

A good example would be a strike on the Iranian nuclear enrichment superbunkers. The US would be required to use a conventional warhead because we have the weapons (30,000 lb MOPs) and the methods of delivery (B-2As) to deliver it. Israel doesn't have that capability; so they're legally allowed to use a nuclear laydown on the superbunker. Sure, it sucks for the town(s) nearby, but thems the breaks.

[Darth Yan]

The popularly accepted Conventions of Land Warfare do need to be revised, now that straight up armed conflict between two states is a rare thing, and that warfare between a uniformed state and a non-uniformed, non-state actor is going to dominate conventional warfare for the forseeable future.

Then why didn't Israel demand this earlier, in say 2007? The only reason their changing now is because they are worried they might actually have to face the consequences of their actions.

[Elfdart]

The fact that Netanyahu wants the laws of war changed to make the slaughter of civilians (like the Gaza Massacre) legal proves that such atrocities are official policy for Israel, just like kidnapping and torture are for the US.

The popularly accepted Conventions of Land Warfare do need to be revised, now that straight up armed conflict between two states is a rare thing, and that warfare between a uniformed state and a non-uniformed, non-state actor is going to dominate conventional warfare for the forseeable future.

Riiiiight, because guerrilla warfare only began a few years ago.