On Friday, Human Rights Watch released its World Report 2007,
So what’s wrong with this picture?
For one thing, this is the same organization that just last month was forced to retract it’s 22 November statement criticizing Palestinian non violent resistance. Although Norman Finkelstein and others called them on their innocent mistake, I thought Jonathan Cook offered the most cogent critique.
It’s going to take a lot more than a retraction to clean their tarnished image. They have made a pretty good start by debunking the Qana ambulance hoax myth. And they have more recently criticized the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein. But I think it’s worth examining the mentality they had to adopt to condemn nonviolent resistance in the first place. And I think it’s obvious where it comes from.
First of all, groups like HRW and Amnesty believe that they have to maintain an ‘apolitical’ appearance. It would be ‘political’ to assert that there is no symmetry between the violence of the oppressor, the occupier, the coloniser...and the resistance. So they have to adopt the fallacious 'even handed' approach.
In a more recent example, in the media release for the new report itself,
They start off by accepting Isr
At a more venal level, these organisations rely a great deal on donations. I believe they are rather acutely aware of what happened to the American Civil Liberties Union in 1977, when they defended the Nazis' right to march through the predominantly Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie and lost some 25% of their membership and a third of their funding base. Arieh Neier, now president of the Soros Foundation of all things, was then the ACLU boss. He went on to found and direct...guess what...HRW.
Obviously, there is no real parallel between Nazis with an ideological principle of exterminating Jews and Palestinians fighting for the most basic rights against an implacable colonial oppressor. But Zionists have spent the last six decades trying, with considerable success, to create the widespread impression that the Jewish people and the Jewish religion are indistinguishable from the Zionist state, and that any threat – even mild criticism of a specific policy – is tantamount to a new Holocaust. So human rights groups concerned to retain their existing levels of donations are probably prudent to adopt the pretense of ‘balance’. And we are absolutely right not to let them get away with it.
So the first question is who the hell are these hypocrites to get up on a high horse and evaluate not just the human rights performance of individual states – and non state actors, when they feel the need – but also which states provide ‘leadership’ on human rights issues.
The second question is where on earth did they get the impression that the
The third question is: the EU? Wasn’t the EU one of those unscrupulous and hypocritical mobs who, along with