Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast

[ubergeek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/op...tein.html?_r=1

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.

[Zan de Man]

What a dishonest article. Israel is an open society, so its munitions don't hurt as much when they tear you and your kids apart.

An open society that oppresses its own Arab minority. An open society as long as you're Jewish. Spreading its openness to illegal "settlements" that pour sewage out openly over Arab land.

Bad, bad Human Rights Watch.

[ubergeek]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

What a dishonest article. Israel is an open society, so its munitions don't hurt as much when they tear you and your kids apart.

An open society that oppresses its own Arab minority. An open society as long as you're Jewish. Spreading its openness to illegal "settlements" that pour sewage out openly over Arab land.

Bad, bad Human Rights Watch.

It is interesting to see how having a different opinion makes you dishonest. Oh well.

Israel is an open society, it is democratic and as in any democracy there are flaws. If you add to it the security issues it makes it even more difficult. So my opinion is that taking into account the extreme security conditions where this democracy is practiced, Israel should be given credit.
There are places to improve and as in any open society there are people in Israel who strongly fight for that. As the article says:”… a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties…”
To remind, the Israeli Arabs are part of the Israeli political system, they are freely represented by Arab parties.

The article doesn’t say that you should not criticize Israel or that Israel is the perfect country. It says that the accusations against Israel are out of proportion, when it comes to human rights, comparing to other human rights violations around the world.
It seems that everybody is so obsessed around Israel that they forget that any country in the region can learn from it.

How ridiculous it is to see China, Iran, Cuba and Russia voting against Israel on Human Rights issue, and obviously the Arab regimes where you get arrested for saying “human righ…”.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by ubergeek

As the article says:”… a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties…”
To remind, the Israeli Arabs are part of the Israeli political system, they are freely represented by Arab parties.

The article doesn’t say that you should not criticize Israel or that Israel is the perfect country. It says that the accusations against Israel are out of proportion, when it comes to human rights, comparing to other human rights violations around the world.
It seems that everybody is so obsessed around Israel that they forget that any country in the region can learn from it.

I think you will find that Israel has anything but a free press. Any reporting of military action conducted against the Palestinians is greatly censored. The language used to describe the situation is heavily sanitised, and any deviation towards the truth is punished. I know, it has happened to me.

Originally Posted by ubergeek

How ridiculous it is to see China, Iran, Cuba and Russia voting against Israel on Human Rights issue, and obviously the Arab regimes where you get arrested for saying “human righ…”.

This is not the situation at all. Those countries voted against Israel blocking the UN human rights investigation of the Gaza offensive.

[ubergeek]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

I think you will find that Israel has anything but a free press. Any reporting of military action conducted against the Palestinians is greatly censored. The language used to describe the situation is heavily sanitised, and any deviation towards the truth is punished. I know, it has happened to me.

To admit, I have no personal experience with censorship, as you seem to have.
I am always happy to learn new things and if I disagree with them, openly go against them having the privilege of freedom of speech.

Any censorship, military including, can be challenged in Israel, in court.

Somehow, I have the feeling that no matter how bad experience you might bring with Israeli censorship, it will look reasonable, compared to any country with similar security issues or any country in the Middle East…and yet, bashing Israel became a national sport…and if you think differently, you are called dishonest.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by ubergeek

To admit, I have no personal experience with censorship, as you seem to have.
I am always happy to learn new things and if I disagree with them, openly go against them having the privilege of freedom of speech.

Any censorship, military including, can be challenged in Israel, in court.

Somehow, I have the feeling that no matter how bad experience you might bring with Israeli censorship, it will look reasonable, compared to any country with similar security issues or any country in the Middle East…and yet, bashing Israel became a national sport…and if you think differently, you are called dishonest.

The censorship of media reports in Israel is the strongest I have ever experienced. Countless reporters have had their stories either removed or "sanitized" to such an extent that it becomes a fairy tale. The censorship goes beyond protecting national security in the current environment. Language is modified to make the security situation appear different to reality itself.
Dead Israelis are counted, dead Palestinians are not. The 20 foot high wall, is called a "security fence", Palestinian rockets "rain down", onto Israel (even if there is just one fired) when multiple missile launches from Israeli jets are "targetted" - but still manage to destroy schools and hospitals.
Many reporters for the BBC and British newspapers have experienced the censoring in Israel, Orla Guerrin to name just one. When the BBC states that they will appeal the censoring of their journalists, the Israeli regime tells them that the BBC will no longer be allowed into the country.

I am not anti-Israel in any way, it is the place of my birth. But I think you need to see the reality of what the news media is in Israel.

[ubergeek]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

The censorship of media reports in Israel is the strongest I have ever experienced. Countless reporters have had their stories either removed or "sanitized" to such an extent that it becomes a fairy tale. The censorship goes beyond protecting national security in the current environment. Language is modified to make the security situation appear different to reality itself.
Dead Israelis are counted, dead Palestinians are not. The 20 foot high wall, is called a "security fence", Palestinian rockets "rain down", onto Israel (even if there is just one fired) when multiple missile launches from Israeli jets are "targetted" - but still manage to destroy schools and hospitals.
Many reporters for the BBC and British newspapers have experienced the censoring in Israel, Orla Guerrin to name just one. When the BBC states that they will appeal the censoring of their journalists, the Israeli regime tells them that the BBC will no longer be allowed into the country.

I am not anti-Israel in any way, it is the place of my birth. But I think you need to see the reality of what the news media is in Israel.

Thanks Uplifter, you have just proved my point.
As much as you tried to make it look bad, it doesn’t even scratch the surface comparing to other countries that face severe security threats, not to mention the mid-east regimes that will hang you by the balls for even having an opinion.

So they call it a “security wall”…evil Israelis.
Things need to be put in proportion!!!

Here is some proportion:
The World’s Deadliest Places for Journalists in 2008
Iraq (14)
Pakistan (6)
India, Philippines, Mexico (5 each)
Georgia, Russia (4 each)
Thailand (3)
Somalia, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Croatia (2 each)
freemedia.at: Asia Eclipses Middle East in Violence Against Journalists

Georgia: Violence against journalists
Georgia: Violence Against Journalists

Fifty-four Chinese citizens have received prison sentences of between two and twelve years for expressing and exchanging opinions on the Internet.
China: human rights | appeal to Hu Jintao & Wen Jiabao for freedom of speech

Jailed Iranian Journalist Tells CBSNews.com How Regime Suppresses Ideas And Images
Free Speech In Iran: Crime And Punishment - CBS News

No freedom of speech in Russia
No Right Turn: No freedom of speech in Russia


No freedom of speech in Egypt
No Right Turn: No freedom of speech in Egypt

Free Speech for Turkey – A ME democracy
Free Speech for Turkey - washingtonpost.com
Global Voices Advocacy » Turkey: Violating online free speech

Jordan: Rise in Arrests Restricting Free Speech
Jordan: Rise in Arrests Restricting Free Speech | Human Rights Watch

Cuba, the world's biggest prison for journalists
Freedom of speech in Cuba

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by ubergeek

Thanks Uplifter, you have just proved my point.
As much as you tried to make it look bad, it doesn’t even scratch the surface comparing to other countries that face severe security threats, not to mention the mid-east regimes that will hang you by the balls for even having an opinion.

So they call it a “security wall”…evil Israelis.
Things need to be put in proportion!!!

No ubergeek, you totally missed the point. I was highlighting that Israel is a million miles away from allowing freedom of speech, as you suggested.
They call it a "fence", not a wall, and I notice you totally ignored the rest of my points.

Originally Posted by ubergeek

there are people in Israel who strongly fight for that. As the article says:”… a vibrant free press,

Originally Posted by ubergeek

Here is some proportion:
The World’s Deadliest Places for Journalists in 2008
Iraq (14)
Pakistan (6)
India, Philippines, Mexico (5 each)
Georgia, Russia (4 each)
Thailand (3)
Somalia, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Croatia (2 each)
freemedia.at: Asia Eclipses Middle East in Violence Against Journalists

Georgia: Violence against journalists
Georgia: Violence Against Journalists

Fifty-four Chinese citizens have received prison sentences of between two and twelve years for expressing and exchanging opinions on the Internet.
China: human rights | appeal to Hu Jintao & Wen Jiabao for freedom of speech

Jailed Iranian Journalist Tells CBSNews.com How Regime Suppresses Ideas And Images
Free Speech In Iran: Crime And Punishment - CBS News

No freedom of speech in Russia
No Right Turn: No freedom of speech in Russia


No freedom of speech in Egypt
No Right Turn: No freedom of speech in Egypt

Free Speech for Turkey – A ME democracy
Free Speech for Turkey - washingtonpost.com
Global Voices Advocacy » Turkey: Violating online free speech

Jordan: Rise in Arrests Restricting Free Speech
Jordan: Rise in Arrests Restricting Free Speech | Human Rights Watch

Cuba, the world's biggest prison for journalists
Freedom of speech in Cuba

So what?
Pointing at other countries that also censor their media, does not make it justifiable for Israel to do the same.

[Uplifter]

Robert Fisk’s World: Israel should pay attention to criticism from its own people - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent

Robert Fisk’s World: Israel should pay attention to criticism from its own people
They wouldn’t accept that the casualties of this war were disproportionate

Saturday, 26 September 2009



I met Judge Richard Goldstone at The Hague at the height of the Bosnian war, a small, dapper man whose belief in the righteousness of justice shone through his every word.


As head of the War Crimes Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia, he pursued the blood-drenched gangsters of the Balkans – Croat Catholic, Bosnian Muslim, Serb Orthodox – with Nuremberg-like persistence. He believed that one day even Slobodan Milosevic would be brought to book. I doubted this. But he was right, as they say, and I was wrong. He was Jewish – and not afraid to talk of his hatred of apartheid in his native South Africa – and I thought he was a fine man.

So would he be pissed on by the Israelis when he investigated the crimes of the winter war in Gaza? Or would Israel – just this once – desist from its usual venom for all critics if this great jurist produced a report that blamed Israel as well as Hamas for crimes against humanity? Not because he was Jewish. Not because he drew the sword of justice on behalf of the UN. But because he was a patently decent and fair man. "I accepted with hesitation my United Nations mandate," he wrote last week, "because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm."

Not a hope, of course. Israeli investigations of the Gaza war, its government officials announced, were "a thousand times" fairer than the Goldstone investigation – a preposterous claim, given Israel's constant inability to conduct fair inquiries of its own – and that his mission "gave legitimacy to the Hamas terrorist organisation". The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem found that 1,387 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza war, more than 770 of them civilians. Thirteen Israelis were killed, four by their own troops, three of the others Israeli Arabs. Goldstone bitterly condemned Hamas for firing at civilians – from civilians areas of Gaza – but Chapter 11 of his report, for example, found that Israel shelled a house in which Palestinian civilians had been forced to gather, intentionally bombed a hospital with white phosphorous shells, shot civilians who were waving white flags and refused to allow wounded to be evacuated.

But no, Israel – as unwilling to accept criticism as Hamas – which, typically and cynically, washed its own dirty hands of the report, even though it murdered at least 40 suspected Palestinian collaborators while killing only six of its military enemies – wouldn't face up to Goldstone's conclusions, wouldn't accept that the casualties of this monstrous war were disproportionate. Israel's response wasn't disproportionate. It never was.

This nonsense is unworthy of a grown-up nation. For not long before the Gaza war, Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli army northern commander, defined his doctrine very carefully. "We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction... This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorised." No wonder the world watches, amazed, at Israel's response to Goldstone's conclusions. And the United States – which, of course, once defined Hiroshima as "a military base" – was either silent or took Israel's side. Barack Obama's UN ambassador, Susan Rice, condemned the Goldstone investigation with the pathetic (and, again, typical) remark that "our view is that we have to remain focused on the future".

But these things come by the bucketful. Take the Toronto Film Festival that ended this week. A group of eight actresses, actors and activists objected to the festival for embracing a city-to-city spotlight with Tel Aviv just a few months after the Gaza slaughter, accusing the Canadian organisers of helping to wash Israel's image after the bloodbath. They weren't trying to boycott the Israeli films at the festival – and by the way, I urge readers to watch the Israeli film Lebanon, filmed almost entirely inside a tank, when it comes your way – and five of the eight letter-signers were Jewish, one an Israeli.

It mattered not, of course. They were accused of trying to organise a racist boycott, abused as hypocrites, censors and – since slanders are now part of the grammar of Israel's so-called supporters – anti-Semites. Naomi Klein, one of the most brilliant of North America's journalists, was abused in Canada's National Post ("the strange, enduring rage of Naomi Klein"), thus cementing the paper's role as Canada's version of the Jerusalem Post.

But there was just one little hiccup for the protesters and their letter. I noticed Jane Fonda's name among them. Fonda? Remember little Jane when she outraged her friends by visiting North Vietnam during America's own disproportionate war in South-east Asia? Tough little Jane, we thought then. But I went back to my files (paper, of course) and discovered that doughty Jane turned up in Lebanon in 1982 when Israel was besieging Beirut – with plenty of white phosphorous shells falling among civilians, of course – to entertain the Israeli soldiers whose war was to claim 17,000 lives. According to Yediot Ahronot (4 July 1982, if readers want to check it out), she "expressed her identification with Israel's struggle against Palestinian terror...", later announcing her "unqualified support for Israel", attributing protests at the invasion to "anti-Semitism". (Please read Al-Hamishmar of 5 December 1982.)

Years later, she turned up in Egypt to marvel at the temples of Luxor, but refused to take questions from me on her enthusiasm for the 1982 Israeli invaders. But then, bingo, up she pops in Toronto. Until last week, when she said she'd signed the letter "without reading it carefully enough... some of the words in the protest letter did not come from my heart... Many (Israeli) citizens now suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder..." The letter did not "hear the narratives of both sides" and could be "inflammatory".

Ye gods! With Jane as a friend, you don't need enemies. But given her previous behaviour and now this grovelling backtrack, you have to admit that the Toronto protesters must have some right on their side. Like Judge Richard Goldstone.

[ubergeek]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

No ubergeek, you totally missed the point. I was highlighting that Israel is a million miles away from allowing freedom of speech, as you suggested.
They call it a "fence", not a wall, and I notice you totally ignored the rest of my points.

So what?
Pointing at other countries that also censor their media, does not make it justifiable for Israel to do the same.

I believe that I got your point right and I'm sorry I haven't responded fully to all of your points.

Your message was loud and clear to me:"Israel is a million miles away from allowing freedom of speech".
And I disagree with you. I think that the points that you have highlighted are far from being sufficient to disqualify Israel, and I compared it to real restrictions of freedom.
My message was to put things in proportion, baring in mind the special security threat.

There is a big difference between pointing out the places where one needs to improve, and totally bashing him.

Your words are:

"The censorship of media reports in Israel is the strongest I have ever experienced."

In comparison to which country in a similar conditions?

The censorship goes beyond protecting national security in the current environment.

That is an opinion.

Language is modified to make the security situation appear different to reality itself.
Dead Israelis are counted, dead Palestinians are not. The 20 foot high wall, is called a "security fence", Palestinian rockets "rain down", onto Israel (even if there is just one fired) when multiple missile launches from Israeli jets are "targetted" - but still manage to destroy schools and hospitals.

Depends which papers you chose to read. Israel has more than one paper or media.

Many reporters for the BBC and British newspapers have experienced the censoring in Israel, Orla Guerrin to name just one. When the BBC states that they will appeal the censoring of their journalists, the Israeli regime tells them that the BBC will no longer be allowed into the country.

I'm not familiar with the Orla Guerrin case, but I promise to read about it.

I am not anti-Israel in any way

...but you call the Israel government a regime. So you use the same tools you are going against.

[Zan de Man]

Originally Posted by ubergeek

In comparison to which country in a similar conditions?

Well why don't we start with my home, Northern Ireland?

Between 1969 and 1999, 916 Israelis were killed by, or as a product of, terrorism. The population of Israel is 7,233,701.

Between 1969 and 1999, 3,600 people were killed by, or as a product of, terrorism in NI. The population of NI is 1,755,000.

Of course, the populations of both nations have grown during that period, but if we ignore that in both cases, the death rate per head of population in NI has been 13 times that of Israel.

The press in NI was always free. The only restriction put on the media was a stupid ordinance by Margaret Thatcher that they couldn't broadcast the voices of Sinn Fein, UDA and other representatives of terror groups. They got round it by dubbing the voices using actors. It made a laughing stock of the law.

Does that help?

[Bateman]

Not a hope, of course. Israeli investigations of the Gaza war, its government officials announced, were "a thousand times" fairer than the Goldstone investigation – a preposterous claim..

Them jews always been prone to exaggerate

[Bateman]

Originally Posted by ubergeek

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/op...tein.html?_r=1

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.

I summarised this article a bit. Here goes...

I'm a jew and I love human rights. I set up human rights watch because I love human rights a lot. I mostly set it up so I could draw attention to some jews who were not being allowed to come to Israel to persecute Palestinians. We soon put that right. Now those bastards at Human Rights Watch have started to criticise jews!!!!! How fucking dare they!! Don't they know that just one hair on a jewish head is worth more than all Palestinians and arabs ever born in the history of the world. The cheek of it. Human Rights watch is just giving support to terrorists these days.

[clownboy]

Seems to me that the fellow that birthed the org might know a bit more than others the actual purpose of the org, and whether it's strayed from that purpose.

[Zan de Man]

And he couldn't be biased?

[ubergeek]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

Well why don't we start with my home, Northern Ireland?

Between 1969 and 1999, 916 Israelis were killed by, or as a product of, terrorism. The population of Israel is 7,233,701.

Between 1969 and 1999, 3,600 people were killed by, or as a product of, terrorism in NI. The population of NI is 1,755,000.

Of course, the populations of both nations have grown during that period, but if we ignore that in both cases, the death rate per head of population in NI has been 13 times that of Israel.

The press in NI was always free. The only restriction put on the media was a stupid ordinance by Margaret Thatcher that they couldn't broadcast the voices of Sinn Fein, UDA and other representatives of terror groups. They got round it by dubbing the voices using actors. It made a laughing stock of the law.

Does that help?

Always good to learn something new.
I have limited knowledge about the conflict in NI. From what I know, there are things in common while many differences, as well.
I'll take your word that there was no censorship at all, and it could be that Israel can learn from the British experience.
However, I still stand behind my basic argument that the level of censorship in Israel is far from deserving strong condemnation. So we get only an A-, I promise that me and my friends will try better next time.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

And he couldn't be biased?

Sure he could, we all are. In fact, that's what he's complaining about, that the org that he created with a fixed bias has changed IT'S bias.

[Zan de Man]

Mmm hmm.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

Mmm hmm.

You'll have to expand on that, my crystal ball is out for repair.

[Zan de Man]

I mean you're probably right.