Checking in on Human Rights Watch and Gaza/Israel

Long-time readers will recall that I am a vociferous critic of Human Rights Watch. HRW purports to be a neutral human rights organization, but consistently hires staffers with a history of anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activism to write and report on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. So how did HRW do after the Oct. 7 massacre and brutalization of Israelis? Perhaps even HRW would find it necessary to issue an immediate, strong condemnation? After all, everything about Hamas murderous rampage violated international law.

Nope. Checking HRW's website, I recount below how it responded, chronologically. Note that it took two days for HRW to say anything about Hamas's actions on 10/7, and even then HRW couldn't spare a single post on Hamas that also did not also address Israel's "obligations." HRW does pay lip service to Hamas's brutality, but only in the context of its primary function, which is as a propaganda outlet for the Palestinian side.

October 9, 2023 Q & A
Questions and Answers: October 2023 Hostilities between Israel and Palestinian Armed Groups

October 9, 2023 News Release
Israel/Palestine: Devastating Civilian Toll as Parties Flout Legal Obligations
Respect International Law, End Impunity to Deter Further Abuses

October 10, 2023 Dispatches
Hamas-Led Attack in Southern Israel Kills Hundreds
All Parties to Conflict Must Abide by Laws of War

October 11, 2023 Commentary
Real or Fake? Verifying Video Evidence in Israel and Palestine
How HRW's Digital Investigations Team is Working to Build Evidence

October 11, 2023 Commentary
With Gaza Sealed Off, Palestinians Face Aid Freezes Too
Amid Humanitarian Crisis, Cutting Off Vital Lifeline Would Be Damaging

October 12, 2023 News Release
Israel: White Phosphorus Used in Gaza, Lebanon
Use in Populated Areas Poses Grave Risks to Civilians

October 12, 2023 Q & A
Questions and Answers on Israel's Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and Lebanon

October 13, 2023 Commentary
Amid Israel/Palestine Hostilities, Brazil Should Press to Respect International Law

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I like Prof. Bernstein's use of chronology to depict the offensive.

Perhaps this development is transferable, and he (or another Volokh Conspirator) could chronicle the eruptions of bigotry at the Volokh Conspiracy with similar excerpts . . . or, because of limited time available consequent to teaching load, one of the Conspirators could simply report on publication of racial slurs by the Volokh Conspiracy's proprietor and conservative fans.

Which Volokh Conspirator will volunteer first?

Carry on, clingers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, if you hate VC so much, why do you read it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pointing out that a disaffected wingnut is a disaffected wingnut, a conservative bigot is a conservative bigot, a deplorable culture war casualty is a deplorable culture war casualty, or an antisocial, racial slur-hurling asshole is an antisocial, racial slur-hurling asshole is a noble endeavor, particularly at the marketplace of ideas.

No free swings, clingers.

[Martinned]

Since David Bernstein sadly forgot to include any links, let me give some examples of that "lip service".

The first thing you see if you go to HRW's website is an article titled:
Hamas, Islamic Jihad: Holding Hostages is a War Crime
Free Civilians Held in Gaza; Treat All Humanely; Don’t Use as Human Shields

[Martinned]

Moving over to the most read articles, we find this one from 18 October:

Israel/Palestine: Videos of Hamas-Led Attacks Verified
ICC Has Mandate to Probe Attacks as War Crimes

[David Bernstein]

Wow, 11 days after the massacre they “verified” evidence produced by the attackers themselves, that only conspitorial notions had doubted? Real human rights heroes, they are,

[Martinned]

Another one that Bernstein also mentions, from shortly after Hamas's attack:

Hamas-Led Attack in Southern Israel Kills Hundreds
All Parties to Conflict Must Abide by Laws of War

[David Bernstein]

Only took them 11 days, and even then they refer to Hamas’s military wing, as if it’s something beyond a terrorist group, pair it with discussion of Israel’s bombing on Gaza, and after taking 11 days to verify Hamas videos of the massacre, repeat Hamas claims of casualties in Gaza without any verification.

[Randal]

That article's from three days after the attack.

[Martinned]

Here's the whole Israel/Palestine section. Judge for yourselves: https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/israel/palestine

[Bob from Ohio]

Look at the twitter feeds of the HRW employees. Start with the 3 who wrote the Guardian column on that web page you linked. 100% anti Israel.

A few token web articles to lull rubes [that's you] is meangingless. Its the emphasis that matters.

[Nige]

That's more like it, counter-examples don't count for reasons!

[Randal]

He's on a rampage! He can't be bothered with facts or accuracy.

[SRG2]

I went to XfokaT to see what HRW had to say and in the first day after the Gaza-Israel war started, Human Rights Watch tweeted or retweeted on various subjects 30 times. One post was a retweet condemning the US’s support for Israel, another was a retweet condemning the kidnappings. No original posts, no condemnation of the murder of 800 (the toll at the time) Israelis.

Perhaps “Human Rights (Judenrein) Watch” would be more appropriate.

[Commenter_XY]

Or Judeocide. (i.e. Judenrein)

[jb]

Even if we accepted that what Professor Bernstein argues here is correct and HRW exclusively posts about Israeli abuses*, it doesn't follow that their message is invalid or that they implicitly support Hamas's actions. The professor, after all, exclusively posts about what opponents of Israel do, but that doesn't mean that he supports violence against Palestinian civilians or that we should just ignore his posts because they are one-sided.**

* A position that Martinned has quite effectively rebutted
** On the other hand, the tenuous logic and loose relationship with actual facts should prompt some skepticism at this point.

[SimonP]

The professor, after all, exclusively posts about what opponents of Israel do, but that doesn’t mean that he supports violence against Palestinian civilians or that we should just ignore his posts because they are one-sided.

If we were to apply to David's writing the same quality of inferential logic he applies to the targets of his attacks, we absolutely would be led to the conclusion that he supports violence against Palestinian civilians, without any apparent limiting principle. He's fortunate that some of us aren't quite as sloppy as he is.

[Vryedni]

I believe David has occasionally condemned West Bank settler violence against Palestinians, just as HRW occasionally condemns Hamas’s targeting of Israeli civilians. Does either of those sotto voce complaints get equally frequent or vociferous coverage as their preferred issues? Certainly not. I infer from that selection bias that David is indeed pro-Israel and HRW pro-Palestinian.

So is it a wash? I don’t think so.

Who is David Bernstein? He’s a law professor with a blog. He makes arguments, which you may or may not find well-supported and reasoned. His writing reflects his opinions and biases. In no event does he hold himself out to be, nor is he relied on by governments and influential non-government organizations as a neutral arbiter of facts and moral consequences. HRW does and is. Their bias belies their mission and it matters. David’s does neither.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I presume you (like the NYT) would have praised Stalin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the underlying hypocrisy starts with the International Red Cross.

For those who don't know, the Swiss have been neutral for centuries because while neither France, Germany, nor Italy would be secure if one of the others held the Swiss mountain passes, all were secure if NONE held them. And the Swiss flag is red with a white cross on it.

Hence the Red Cross is the opposite of the Swiss flag -- and had an international meaning until Islamic countries insisted on replacing the cross with a crescent so as to reflect their religious beliefs and the Red Cross said OK.

And then the Israelis said what about us? We want to have the Red Star of David -- and the Red Cross said no.

So under international law, the IDF has every right to shoot at the Red Crescent. It won't because of who they are, but perhaps it should.

And if it has to kill 2 million armed combatants (rocks are arms) to pacify Gaza, that's what it will take.

[David Nieporent]

So under international law, the IDF has every right to shoot at the Red Crescent.

That is, of course, cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs nutty. Please, nobody ever listen to Dr. Ed about anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

...

[David Nieporent]

I've finally found a Dr. Ed comment I agree with.

[Randal]

Still no attempt to grapple with why Israel is losing support.

It'll just continue to slip away then. Dishonest pro-Zionist propaganda doesn't help.

[Nige]

A Netanyahu-shaped elephant in the room.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why you think Israel is losing support.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Israel is NOT losing support in Protestant Middle America...

[Randal]

Exactly.

[ReaderY]

It does seem that HRW’s coverage has become more critical of Hamas than it has been in the past.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of Human Rights Watch and its attitudes towards Israel, here's Professor Bernstein's former favorite whipping girl, Sarah Leah Whitson, formerly head of the Middle East division of HRW,¹ contributing to the discourse on Twitter this morning:

Asking Israel to "respect international law" and "protect civilians" is also a form of manipulation, propaganda, and fake news, deflecting from the fact that Israel has never done either and is certainly not doing so now.

What political leaders should be saying is "stop bombing and starving Palestinians".

¹Old timey VCers might remember her traveling to Saudi Arabia in her official capacity at HRW to ask them to contribute money to HRW for the purpose of demonizing Israel.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, Whitson was too smart to be fooled by Hamas propaganda about Israeli bombing killing 500 civilians at a hospital:

Over 1000 killed in strike in Gaza hospital. Families sheltering there for protection. Israel claiming “Hamas did it”…

(Emphasis added.)

[Randal]

One thing I've never seen on any of these VC posts or threads is an actual substantive defense of Israel. The only thing we get is "at least it's not as bad as Hamas," but that's obviously not saying much.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you serious? = One thing I’ve never seen on any of these VC posts or threads is an actual substantive defense of Israel.

You mean, defend their existence? As if Israel needs 'defending'.

StormFront awaits you, Randal. You'll fit right in.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's one of the 3 who joined Kirkland in mute-land within days of 10/7. You should try that also.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not recall withholding comment. Maybe some of this blog's right-wing fans were too busy proofreading downscale residential deeds in Can't Keep Up, Ohio to catch some of the debate.

Don't forget, Bob -- guys like you will be groveling at the feet of guys like me not so long from now, begging for undeserved leniency and preservation of a few safe spaces for bigots and special privileges for superstitious rubes from the culture war's winners. Much like Israel's supporters will be begging the modern American mainstream to reconsider a decision to stop subsidizing Israel's right-wing belligerence down the road apiece.

See you down that road, clingers.

[Randal]

I do what I can to keep DB honest. It’s a Herculean and probably Sisyphean task, but if it prevents even one impressionable youth from concluding that Zionists are irredeemable idiots, it will have been worth it.

[Michael P]

That's weird, because you act like you're doing what you can to fill the comment section with garbage comments.

As a case in point, there has been a lot of debate over Israel's actions and whether they are justified. (Admittedly, most of the anti-Israeli argument has been one crazy Dutchie who doesn't understand customary international law or consistently apply what he claims it is, and so he has been getting regularly trounced by the people explaining why Israel's actions are largely justified. But the argument is definitely happening here.) Yet here you are, loudly denying the existence of what is easy to find.

[Randal]

Show me any pro-Israeli comment about whether Israel's actions are justified that isn't "Hamas is worse."

[Bob from Ohio]

Two comments I'll never read. Sad.

[Randal]

It's not about defending Israel's existence. Don't believe David's strawman that all these people want to see Israel destroyed. That's just not the case.

For example, how would you respond to the above accusation that Israel fails to respect international law and fails to take sufficient care to protect civilians?

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, I'm sorry, I must've been confused when I read this gem: One thing I’ve never seen on any of these VC posts or threads is an actual substantive defense of Israel.

Listen, Randal, dude(? - I really don't want to misgender you)...you'll have lots of like minded friends over at StormFront. I'm sure you've checked it out. Hey, you can be best buds with hoppy, or Misek or Affleck or other assorted antisemitic nutcases out there. You'll feel empowered, Randal. Truly. You will feel very powerful.

[Randal]

Bleh. What a dumb butt response.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because the Gazan rockets take care to protect civilians...

Carpetbomb Gaza!!!

[Nige]

See? THAT'S the level of defence. Peformative outrage and appeals to anti-semitism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Israel produces oranges and plastics and pharmaceuticals -- Gaza produces terrorists.

Israel is only supposed to blow up "legitimate" targets, Gaza sends rockets blindly into Israel which blow up whatever they hit.

Israel shouldn't be defended???

[Randal]

Just like I thought, “Hamas is worse” is all you’ve got.

Comparing something to Hamas is not flattering. FYI.

[Nige]

I'm having flashbacks to years ago when pretty much the exact same post was made re HRW and Israel/Palestine years ago. It took seconds to point out the counter-examples, and mere seconds more for the explanations to arrive as to why they didn't count.

[SRG2]

That terrorist group is also the governing party of Gaza..

[SRG2]

HRW would know better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More subsidized by Israel.

What does Gaza produce (other than terrorists)?
What is its balance of trade? Its exports?

From what I see, there is a demand for 100 truckloads of supplies per day, who is paying for all of this?

From what I see, Gaza is a welfare state, living off the handouts of Israel and (via the UN) the US. Well, it's time for some welfare reform -- starting with no independent government until you can feed yourself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, as of 2006ey kinda recognize an Israeli branch. But still not the Red Star, though….

And before 2006????