NGO Monitor: Gaza war probe tainted by anti-Israel ideology
Israeli researchers Richard Goldstone's former role in HRW casts doubt on neutrality of international probe.
By Cnaan Liphshiz Tags: Goldstone report UN Israel newsA group of Israeli researchers on Tuesday questioned the objectivity, integrity and professionalism of the international body Human Right's Watch based on findings from the first comprehensive study into the activities of the organization.
They added the report casts doubt as to the neutrality of the Goldstone Commission on Gaza.
Human Rights Watch said the accusation was "misleading" and reflected a "deep misunderstanding" of its role.
The 80-page study by the Jerusalem-based organization NGO Monitor speaks of "major flaws in the focus on Israel" by HRW. The Israeli organization noted that Richard Goldstone, the head of a UN team investigating alleged war crimes in Gaza, had been a HRW board member until recently.
"Although Goldstone resigned, his statements have strongly echoed and defended HRW's bias, particularly over Gaza," NGO Monitor said in a statement about the study.
"Goldstone's strong identification with Human Rights Watch forms the political foundation for his biased inquiry," said Professor Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor's founder. The Goldstone Commission is due to release its findings in the next few weeks.
In the study, Steinberg and his researchers gave profiles of HRW?s Middle East division staff, "which is led by ideologues with a history of pro-Palestinian activism, rather than human rights experts," according to the report's authors.
The Middle East division is headed by Sarah Leah Whitson, who participated in the Caterpillar Israel boycott campaign, and in a HRW fundraising trip to Saudi Arabia. Deputy Director Joe Stork, according to the report, participated in a "Zionism and Racism" conference in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, before joining HRW.
In its full reaction, HRW said NGO Monitor's report contained "errors of fact and misleading analysis," preferring "personal attacks" on its staff to "addressing the findings of human rights violations."
Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director, called Steinberg "a consultant to the Israeli Foreign Ministry." Steinberg said that in the past, he has consulted for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on issues unrelated to NGOs, but is no longer a consultant.
According to Roth, Human Rights Watch receives no government funds. But Steinnberg's research on HRW showed it is has received funding to the tune of $900,000 from NOVIB, a body funded by the Dutch government.
Roth told Haaretz that Steinberg's report is part of the Netanyahu government's "battle on critics," aimed at "deflecting attention" from "unnecessary" civilian deaths in Gaza. "NGO Monitor has yet to show any of our findings to be wrong," he said, adding his organization seeks out "as many viewpoints as possible."
He added that HRW has published dozens of reports on abuses by Middle Eastern governments, including Egypt, Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia.
But the report's Israeli authors also accuse HRW of "methodological failures" that "violate" the fact-finding guidelines of the International Bar Association. These reports, they said, "rely on unreliable eyewitnesses and consistently confuse speculation with fact," while "omitting evidence" such as videos showing Hamas and Hezbollah using human shields.
Steinberg named HRW's investigation into the alleged firing by IDF troops on Gazans flying white flags. "The Abd Rabbo family, on whom the first incident depends, has given 14 different versions of their story since January," Steinberg said.
An analysis of 2008 publications using a weighted quantitative methodology showed, according to the study, that HRW focused more attention on Israel than on Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and others. "Since 2000, HRW has called 68 times for independent investigations against Israel," Steinberg added. "There is no parallel regarding any other country."
"Human rights values and research standards have been replaced by ideology," Steingberg concluded. "The Middle East division of this powerful organization needs a full and systemic overhaul, to recover its moral foundation and relevance in promoting human rights, particularly in repressive regimes."
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
no,16 was quoting from amnesty international, not HRW, there is a difference, though prejudice may be blind to it
#Yes, 21. A report caused by a bad conscience. There will be more like these now shortly before the release of the Goldstone report. Why are the Israelis so afraid of it before they even know what it says? They were the ones who refused to work with the commission. Why? Afraid of the truth? Or simply too arrogant to look at their own reflection in the mirror?
Like HOW?
It sounds like NGO Monitor's entire report consists of personal attacks on the staff of HRW, rather than actual critique of its findings. Even more absurd, the personal attacks basically alleged that anyone sympathetic to Palestinians is incapable of objective reporting of the facts--that perhaps people who engage objectively with the facts might reach a particular conclusion seems to have escaped Mr. Steinberg's attention. Obviously, HRW's reporting is much more credible than the Israeli Foreign Ministry and their consultants' self-serving version of events. Why is Haaretz even covering this? Israel again denies committing human rights violations--how is that news?
F: "Or does anyone know of ONE SINGLE NGO (a credible recognized NGO and not some propaganda outfit) which NGO Monitor finds acceptable?" I believe that NGO Monitor puts a great deal of faith in www.camera.org Oh, sorry, I missed the "(a credible recognized NGO and not some propaganda outfit)"....
Has anyone counted the number of NGOs - Israeli or international - which NGO Monitor has accused of biais? Or does anyone know of ONE SINGLE NGO (a credible recognized NGO and not some propaganda outfit) which NGO Monitor finds acceptable?
"World continues to ignore Palestinian war crimes" Could that possibly be because Israel is the aggressor due to its stealing of Palestinian land and Palestinian resources? By any chance?
...you quote a report from Amnesty that proves that the group does indeed report on both sides, and the world is already well aware of the resistance to Israel's illegal occupations. The world simply does not care because it is Israel causing the resistance by stealing land and resources from the Palestinians. End the occupations, end the resistance to it, it's that damned simple.
"Whether or not attacks actually result in civilian casualties, they are in violation of international law, which also prohibits attacks aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population. The patterns of attacks and statements by members and leaders of Palestinian groups also indicate that they have no qualms about launching attacks against civilians and that they in fact carry out such attacks intending to kill and injure Israeli civilians. Such attacks constitute war crimes." Amnesty International report, July 2, 2009
So I suppose the investigation should take a pro-Israel position instead, and just find what you appalling people tell it to find?
To No 3.Israel is and has since its establishment been under threat. So therefore it behaves as any other western democracy would in similar circumstances.
Typical Israeli response. Israeli leadership has a foundation of lies.
Those of us who watched Cast Lead while deriving orders of battle and tracking movements are well aware that what the IDF did, and didn't do, in that operation. I for one urged that the IDF drive HARD against Hamas with the intention of doing immense - perhaps fatal - damage. The IDF did not do that. Rather the operations were most concentrated upon infrastructure and residences. Hamas went to ground, and avoided involvement whenever possible As a result IDF casualties were low, Hamas casualties were not significant, and damage to civilian infrastructure and casualties amongst civilians were high. All of these observations are consistent, and consistent with fact. The Kadima government was facing an election. High casualties would have doomed it. And high casualties would have resulted from going after Hamas. So the targets were 'soft'. Homes are soft, civilians are soft, infrastructure is soft. And a great 'victory' was won. And Israel has to deny the truth. Some victory.
Yes, to Western Democracies but not to the present ones with secure borders and no existencial threat from their neighbors with huge 100-fold resourses.
I can't wait until all the anti-Semites weigh in. The facts here are researched and proven. And, most importantly, verifiable. If typical, every objection coming forward will be based on hatred of Israel and/or ignorance of the facts. It is a perfect storm. Bring it on!
It tells us quite a bit, actually..... 1) Barak has already thumbed through his copy of Goldstone's draft report 2) Goldstone has been every bit as thorough as Barak feared he would be 3) Barak therefore has removed the leash from NGO Monitor to run a smear campaign to discredit Goldstone prior to the release of that report. Hasbarah Standard Operating Procedure. No mention here, of course, of the report in JPOST. You know, that IDF Military Police have been quietly interviewing the eyewitnesses by meeting them at the Erez crossing.... You know, the very interviews that Hasbarah Hacks claim Can't Be Done...
One of the most glaring yet ignored aspects of the Gaza situation is the fact that Egypt also has a Gaza border. A true siege of Gaza by Israel is impossible, as Israel does not surround Gaza. Tiny Israel saved and absorbed Jewish refugees, almost a million from the Mid East alone, and has or had the highest refugee proportion of any nation. It is rather strange that giant Egypt's decades-long lock-out of Gazan Arabs is neither mentioned or protested by Haaretz writers, or by the so-called "human rights group" discussed in this article. In other words, Egypt forcing back thousands of Gazans who breached the border and fled into Egypt last year is just fine, as is the Egyptian shooting of several Gazans who still breached Egypt's Gaza border later. Yet Israel's fighting back after years of rockets from Gaza is seen as a mortal sin. Double-standard here? Noooooo, OF COURSE NOT!
...attempts to shoot the messenger this time are falling on deaf ears. The live videos clinched it, they could not have been faked.
According to the NGO Monitor an apt comparison is Iran, Syria, EGypt and Jordan. Israel claims to be a democracy, with democratic values. It is also considered to be a fairly western country, with a large amount of western allies. As such, Israel can't expect to be dealt with in the same manner as quasi-democracies and dictatorships. Its standard of behavior is the same as the standard of behavior of other western democracies, not as that of dictatorships.
According to Roth, Human Rights Watch receives no government funds. But Steinnberg's research on HRW showed it is has received funding to the tune of $900,000 from NOVIB, a body funded by the Dutch government. Steinberg is partyly right by remarking that NOVIB is funded by the Dutch government. For th ebiggest part however, NVIB is funded by other sources. Besides: NOVIB is an absolutely independent organisation which takes it's decisions to fund indepenedently and not influenced by government. Me as the PM of the Netherlands I am well acquinted with the way how NOVIB is functioning. If my government had to decide wether to finance HRW or not, we wouldn't have done it, but as I remarked, NOVIB is an independent organisation and we as the Dutch government aren't able to influence the decisions of NOVIB. So, I have to qualify the remarks of professor Steinberg as nonsens
the zionists typical response to any critisism.
In one paragraph Human Rights watch is claiming the personal attacks saying NGO Monitor's report contained "errors of fact and misleading analysis," preferring "personal attacks" on its staff to "addressing the findings of human rights violations." A valid response, yet in the next paragraph Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director, called Steinberg "a consultant to the Israeli Foreign Ministry." A personal attack unrelated to the claims made by the group.
Great report: Goldstone is guilty of caring for human rights. There'e a person one must distrust.