HRW’s website has published this piece on the Geneva Conventions and Israel by director Ken Roth. There are many things wrong with it, but I’ll focus on one piece of blatant dishonesty.
Here’s Roth:
Instead, there is strong evidence that Israel wanted Gazan civilians to pay the price for Hamas’s abuses, and that the decision to impose that cost was taken not by junior officers in the field but by senior government officials.... [A]s the foreign minister at the time, Tzipi Livni, said during a wartime debate in parliament: “On my way here I heard that Hamas declared the man killed by a rocket in Ashkelon ‘one of the Zionists’ despite being an Israeli Arab. They don’t make a distinction, and neither should we.” With culpability running to such senior levels of government, it is no surprise that Israel wants to rewrite the rules.
Roth helpfully provides a link to his source for Livni’s quote, a newspaper article from the Israeli news site Ynet. Put aside, for a moment, the fact that despite the seriousness of his accusation, Roth is quoting from a newspaper article that doesn’t give a transcript (and thus the full context) of Livni’s remarks. And put aside that he is relying on an English translation, not the original Hebrew.
The Ynet article itself that Roth cites makes it clear that Livni is not talking, as Roth claims, about Israel not distinguishing between attacking Hamas and attacking ordinary innocent Gaza civilians, but about Israel not distinguishing between its Jewish and Arab citizens.
The context, from the article, is that an Arab Israeli MP lambasted Israel for the civilian casualties in Gaza, and then added . “As a humane person, I oppose targeting civilians wherever they are. Naturally, however, every time an Arab is injured it hurts me more because we are members of the same nation.” That is when Livni responded, “On my way here I heard that Hamas declared the man killed by a rocket in Ashkelon ‘one of the Zionists’ despite being an Israeli Arab. They don’t make a distinction, and neither should we.”
She then added, “And this is also an examination for the Arab leadership in the State of Israel. You are leading the Arab public on a thin rope. You cannot cross the line between right and wrong, between legitimate and illegitimate, between what is right and what is misleading. This is not a choice between being Arabs and supporting the Jews.”
The context, in other words, could hardly be clearer. Livni is criticizing Israeli Arab MP, and other leading Israeli Arabs, for supporting Gaza Palestinians based on common ethnic heritage rather than supporting their government in combating anti-Israel terrorism that kills Israeli Jews and Arabs.
Nevertheless, Livni’s quote has shown up, out of context, as evidence of Israel’s purported disregard for civilians, on a variety of anti-Israel propaganda sites. Unfortunately, HRW’s website meets that description.
DG says:
Oops. Bad research and not in the original language. The problem with HRW is that they reach a conclusion and work backwards, rather than engaging in open inquiry.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 8:58 amneurodoc says:
Roth’s bona fides as the child of a Holocaust survivor are regularly advertised by HRW to give him and them credibility. Bruno Kreisky, the late Prime Minister of Autria, was himself a Jewish Holocaust survivor, a regular defamer of Israel, and champion of the Jewish state’s enemies, including Arafata and the real Nazis Kreisky appointed to office. A recent essay, “Kreisky’s Children” does an excellent job of discussing the likes of Kreisky, Kenneth Roth, and certain other of Israel’s “Jewish” enemies. I can’t commend this piece highly enough for the insights it provides.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/53754/sec_id/53754
Quote
January 4, 2010, 9:03 amneurodoc says:
Professor Bernstein, do tell us when you have heard from Kevin Jon Heller with his to be expected defense of Roth and HRW and attack on you.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 9:16 amlgm says:
Nitpicking the sourcing of one quote does not refute the HRW conclusion that Israel is violating the human rights of Gazans. This conclusion has been reached by every independent investigation — Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, the Goldstone report, and so on.
Israel is engaging in collective punishment of Gazans, which is against international law.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 9:17 amDavid Bernstein says:
“Nitpicking the sourcing of one quote does not refute the HRW conclusion that Israel is violating the human rights of Gazans.”
It’s not “nitpicking” the “sourcing”. Roth uses the quote to support a very serious allegation against the Israeli government, and the source that he himself provides shows that the quote has absolutely nothing to do with that allegation.
Obviously, this one blog post is not addressing, nor does it intend to address, all the allegations against Israel. Rather, it addresses the veracity of one of Israel leading critics, HRW and its leader Ken Roth. Not coincidentally, Goldstone, who was on the board of HRW, relied heavily on HRW’s reports. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 9:29 amneurodoc says:
I think you miss Igm’s real point. He is telling us that he knows Israel is guilty as charged by its critics, and you are wasting his time (and yours and ours) by trying to persuade him with evidence and argument of anything that might challenge his certainty that Israel is guilty as charged of the most serious crimes. (It would be of some interest here to know what Igm thinks Israel’s enemies, e.g., Hamas, are guilty of, and how Israel should respond to their attacks on it and its people.)
Quote
January 4, 2010, 9:56 amSeamus says:
I guess what lgm is trying to say is that what Roth alleged was fake but accurate.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 10:14 amDavid Schwartz says:
I suspect that you you don’t know what collective punishment is. Because if you define it the way you seem to have defined it, the United States embargo of Cuba is collective punishment.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 10:32 amlgm says:
Every human rights organization on the planet not directly tied to the government of Israel believes that Israel abuses the human rights of Palestinians, not only in Gaza. Incorrect sourcing of a quote doesn’t change that. There are, as Likud likes to say, “facts on the ground”.
Look at Juan Cole, for example.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 10:44 amDavid Bernstein says:
Juan “conservative Jews who serve in Republican administrations will serve Likud’s interests instead of the U.S.‘s” Cole? You’re citing HIM as an authority? Ha!
Anyway, you’re trying to drag the commenters into a debate on Israel’s human rights record. This post, again, does not purport to be a defense of Israel’s human rights record, or a refutation of its critics. It provides proof that despite all the attention lavished on HRW’s grotesque bias against Israel, its leader is still willing and able to publish blatant lies, lies refuted by the very sources he himself cites. You haven’t disputed this, because you can’t, so you try to change the subject.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 10:51 amSeamus says:
Anyone who, on a blog whose readers are mostly conservatives and libertarians, cites Juan Cole with the expectation of convincing people on the strength of Cole’s authority, is probably living in a bubble and has no experience dealing with (much less debating with) real conservatives or libertarians. I would as soon go to Daily Kos and post comments citing Robert George or Victor Davis Hanson as authorities.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 10:56 amHipposGoBeserk says:
Professor, you miss the key statement in Igm’s second post: “Every human rights organization on the planet not directly tied to the government of Israel believes that Israel abuses the human rights of Palestinians, not only in Gaza.”
Igm correctly identifies the BELIEF of these self-righteous groups. Igm also demonstrates that he cannot be bothered to wonder if there is any evidence to support that belief, he simply adopts it himself.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 11:20 amneurodoc says:
Care to tell us? Do you think that the Palestinians, Hamas in particular, abuse the human rights of Israelis by slaughtering them when they can accomplish it?How exactly would you have Israel respond to rocket attacks and cross border raids from Gaza?
Quote
January 4, 2010, 11:28 amBlue Neponset says:
So what conclusion(s) should we draw from the fact that HRW is a bunch of horrible liars?
If your only/main intention is to let us know about the horrible job that HRW does then it begs the question, why should we care about HRW at all? Aren’t there other organizations who do equally bad work? If so, then why don’t you post about them?
Quote
January 4, 2010, 11:29 amDavid Bernstein says:
As my daughter’s preschool teacher likes to say, “I’m not an octopus.”
Quote
January 4, 2010, 11:34 amJoe says:
“I’m not an octopus.”
Says you. Anyway, obviously you can’t reach everything, but even with two appendages you have can cover more ground. You, reasonably enough, have certain concerns. OTOH, it’s hard to be convinced, unless we want to be, by such an example as it is after all but one. And, it is hard to be THAT upset when they in effect included the seeds of their own destruction by allowing someone to follow the link.
Also, I’m unsure of the consistency of the tests of credible criticism put forth here. Does one critical piece that only includes English really THAT damning? Is not critical analysis, including those cited by those on this blog, often not bilingual? I’m unsure how useful Hebrew would be anyway. Perhaps you read Hebrew, I don’t know, but most of us do not. I’m sure that quote can be searched for fairly easily and a Hebrew translation can be found given the article provides the context.
As you note, in context, the problem appears to be not the language (or the failure to cite a full transcript, again, quite regularly the case for critical pieces) but taking it out of context. It is fair to call them on this; others will argue the overall cause is still legitimate.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 12:12 pmlgm says:
It isn’t only HRW. Read the wikipedia article for links to others. Or just google “Israel Human Rights violations”. As you would know if you looked, these organizations also condemn Hamas, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia (big time), Egypt, etc.
I am aware that Israelis have been killed by rocket attacks from Gaza, but very few compared to the huge toll of Gazans. Moreover, it is hard to interpret Israeli actions as anything other than collective punishment. If a criminal in Gaza launches a rocket that kills an Israeli, this does not entitle the government of Israel to use indiscriminate military force in heavily populated areas of Gaza.
I recognize that Juan Cole is a bit of a nut. However, I believe from reading his blog that most of his factual statements are accurate. My experience reading, for example, Victor Davis Hanson is different. His factual statements, when there are any, often are incorrect.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 12:13 pmEngineer says:
If a criminal in Gaza launches a rocket that kills an Israeli, this does not entitle the government of Israel to use indiscriminate military force in heavily populated areas of Gaza.
Oh yes right .... it was “a criminal” ....
So you’re saying it would be different then if had Israel soaked up months of attacks from a Palestinian state-sponsored organization before finally moving against the terrorists who deliberately operate from civilian areas for propaganda reasons....
Right?
Or is there some reason that decided to deliberately soft-pedal the situation to demonize the Israelis?
Quote
January 4, 2010, 1:12 pmBlue Neponset says:
So as a non-octopi what conclusions should we draw from the fact that HRW are a bunch of wicked horrible liars?
Quote
January 4, 2010, 1:12 pmEngineer says:
If a criminal in Gaza launches a rocket that kills an Israeli,
It was always strange to hear non-Israelis talk about how the Hamas rockets were no big deal .... but it’s really bizarre now that the US has been thrown into chaos by a single failed attack on an airplane.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 1:18 pmMark Buehner says:
Just to set the bar, how many Israelis need to die before Israel is entitled to shoot a missile into Gaza? If this were happening on the US border, would you say the same?
I’m new to this theory that military operations should be geared to inflict equivalent damage to the enemy. In the past the theory was using disproportional effectiveness ends the war in this thing called ‘victory’. I guess the eye for an eye decade after decade is more humane?
Quote
January 4, 2010, 1:21 pmluagha says:
> Israel is engaging in collective punishment of Gazans, which is against international law. <
International law and a buck-fifty will get you a very cheap cup of coffee.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 1:22 pmJT says:
Probably not, and it would be hard to argue against that. Unfortunately, your synopsis does not even come close to fairly describing the events of the Gaza incursion last year. Do you honestly believe that every rocket attack was perpetuated by a lone (or lone group) of “criminal”(s) with absolutely no ties to, facilitation by or authority from Hamas (the elected government)? And that the force used in the Gaza battles was “indiscriminate?”
Quote
January 4, 2010, 1:28 pmHarryEagar says:
Seamus sez: ‘Anyone who, on a blog whose readers are mostly conservatives and libertarians, cites Juan Cole’
I am neither a conservative nor a libertarian, but put me in the group that distrusts Cole.
Heck, now even lgm asserts that he is ‘a bit of a nut.’
So, do we rewind, or do we assume that Cole is the best source of Israel’s evilness going?
Quote
January 4, 2010, 1:33 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
“I am not an octopus.” Exactly. Israel has critics along a continuum of reasonableness. When one of these is identified as consistently biased and inaccurate, it is a just response on the part of DB to undermine the credibility of that organization. The sly implications that this is part of a larger strategy to undermine the credibility of all Israel’s critics is not warranted from the data.
That people come to that conclusion so readily may tell us more about them than it does about DB.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 2:48 pmkumquat says:
If I were an anti-Israel propagandist, I’d be tempted to offer Roth some advice on better quote-mining. On its own, “They don’t make a distinction, and neither should we.” can easily sound like a bloodthirsty call to total war. But including the prior sentence about Hamas killing an Israeli Arab and calling him one of their Zionist enemies gives the game away to anyone who isn’t completely blinded by ideology.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 3:35 pmDG says:
Someone needs to educate lgm on the difference between a sourcing error and misrepresenting context.
“I am not an octopus” — ok, thats a great quote.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 5:52 pmBleepless says:
I’m so old, I remember when Human Rights Watch was genuinely concerned with human rights. That dates me.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 10:20 pmLeo Marvin says:
It still is, which is one reason the damage it does to its reputation with its apparent anti-Israel bias is so unfortunate.
Quote
January 5, 2010, 1:14 amlucklucky says:
“Israel is engaging in collective punishment of Gazans, which is against international law.”
That is a joke isn’t it? By definition any War is collective punishment(C.O.) –using anti+western ONG definitions of C.O.- so unless War started to be outlawed in International Law it isn’t against it. Which is obviously the HRW objectif: outlaw War by western countries since HRW is an Anti-Western Civ. organisation.
Quote
January 5, 2010, 3:05 amlgm says:
I know exactly the moment they stopped, in your mind, being “genuinely concerned with human rights”. That was the moment they dared criticize Israel. Isn’t it an interesting coincidence that Amnesty International stopped being interested in human rights at exactly the same time?
Quote
January 5, 2010, 9:24 amneurodoc says:
I suppose I should have realized it before, but now it is unequivocally clear that Igm is only here to let us know of his opposition to the Jewish state, that he has nothing to contribute by way of substantive argument. He hasn’t engaged with Professor Bernstein’s case against HRW, in particular the significance of this latest utterance by Ken Roth, or the substantive comments of others, as competent counsel would be expected to do on behalf of a client, because he can’t. Responses to Igm, at least after this one, will be a waste of time.
Quote
January 5, 2010, 10:13 amneurodoc says:
Professor Bernstein noted that there are many things wrong with the HRW blog entry in question, then skipped to the particular bit of dishonesty he chose to focus on. One of the other things wrong with what Roth wrote is right there in the very first sentence.
The implication is that Israel stands out as the world’s biggest violator of human rights and every other government besides Israel celebrated the anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. Well, the ICRC has a page showing various countries’ markings of the anniversary. Israel is represented there. But Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Qatar, the UAE and practically every other Arab state save Lebanon and Iraq are not listed. http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/geneva-conventions-event-100709 HRW is unbiased where Israel is concerned?
Quote
January 5, 2010, 10:35 amGramarye says:
DB’s point has consistently been, to the extent I’ve followed these discussions, that HRW (unlike other organizations that might do equally poor work) enjoys respect, credibility, and a media profile not commensurate with the quality of its work. Therefore, while the other organizations might be equally reckless with the truth on this issue, their biases and proclivities are known. The implication is that HRW should not be treated (by the media, by lawmakers, etc.) as a neutral observer or analyst; it should be treated as an factional player in the anti-Zionist camp. One should no more expect to find a pro-Israel quote from HRW than an anti-Israel quote from AIPAC, and one should also be more careful in vetting HRW’s sources (rather than accepting HRW as a source in itself) before quoting its factual assertions as valid.
Quote
January 5, 2010, 2:57 pmYankev says:
DB did not and cannot undermine HRW’s credibility. HRW has already done so all by themselves. DB has simply publicized the fact.
To some, Israel’s real or imagined misdeeds justify any lie, no matter how absurd or how vile. Those people are now attacking DB because they don’t want to admit that one of their favorite authorities likes to fib.
Quote
January 5, 2010, 7:26 pmYankev says:
In the immortal words of Dorothy Parker, you can lead a horticulture . . .
Quote
January 5, 2010, 7:27 pmlgm says:
You’re projecting. I’m in favor of a Jewish state. But I think the Jewish state would be better off respecting the human rights of those under its control. For completeness, I also think Hamas would be better off if it respected the human rights of those trying to destroy it’s homeland.
Professor Bernstein wouldn’t bother quibbling with a quote from an HRW document if he didn’t at least implicitly want to make the larger point that the HRW conclusion is wrong. The HRW report may not be error free. What report is? But it is an undeniable fact that the Israeli actions in Gaza violated the human rights of Gazans. I noticed that none of the angry responses to my post denied this, though some gave excuses.
Quote
January 5, 2010, 8:12 pmleo marvin says:
The title of the post suggests he’s making a broader point about HRW’s credibility. If HRW’s credibility is tarnished, that doesn’t mean its conclusions are necessarily false, just that they shouldn’t be assumed accurate.
How do you know? Did you witness it personally, or is that based on the reporting of others? If the latter, their credibility matters, doesn’t it?
I don’t deny it, because I don’t know if it’s true or false. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s true, since violations aren’t unusual in war. But the question is, how do I, thousands of miles away, know which version of disputed events to believe? It would be nice if I could trust an impartial arbiter to guide my analysis. Unfortunately, HRW, which I’d be inclined to trust for that purpose in other parts of the world has disqualified itself as credibly neutral in this one.
Quote
January 5, 2010, 10:33 pmneurodoc says:
You reveal more about your thinking than you probably intend or are aware of. In doing so, you make it clear that you either can’t see the bias of Roth and HRW evident in what Professor Bernstein cited above or you don’t attach any significance to it, because you don’t see the same bias in yourself or are entirely comfortable with it and don’t care to engage with evidence. But you serve for illustrative purposes here, so thanks for that.
Quote
January 6, 2010, 2:40 amneurodoc says:
BTW, if I were projecting, as you say I am, that would mean I did not really favor the Jewish state vis-a-vis its enemies, but didn’t want to openly admit such and imagined you to have the same uncomfortable feelings I secretly harbored about Israel. That is ludicrous on its face, especially coming from you with your fainthearted, if not frankly dubious, support for Israel.
Quote
January 6, 2010, 3:02 amYankev says:
Now whose projecting? Israel has expressed its willingness to live alongside a Palestinian state, so long as that state is willing to live in peace alongside Israel. Hamas is pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state, as is the supposedly more moderate Fatah.
Quote
January 6, 2010, 9:55 amYankev says:
Ugh. Make that “Who’s projecting.”
Quote
January 6, 2010, 9:58 amneurodoc says:
It’s the thought that counts, and you got that right.
Quote
January 6, 2010, 2:19 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Typical Human Rights Watch Dishonesty -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRank – Law, Rogelio. Rogelio said: There are many things wrong with it RT @pr_law: Typical Human Rights Watch Dishonesty http://bit.ly/6sdQzZ #postrank #law [...]
HRW Press says:
Distinction and Israeli Quotes
David Bernstein says that former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s quote (“… they don’t distinguish, and neither should we”) is not evidence that Israeli officials failed to distinguish between Hamas fighters and Gazan civilians in last year’s fighting, as Kenneth Roth states in his recent article on Israel and the Geneva Conventions (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/30/geneva-conventions-still-hold-kenneth-roth). Bernstein is right that Livni’s statement in both English and Hebrew is unclear on that point. But other quotes from Livni and then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert support the argument.
Just after the war, on February 1, 2009, Olmert reportedly told his cabinet that, “The government’s position was from the outset that if there is shooting at the residents of the south, there will be a harsh Israeli response that will be disproportionate.” (“Israel Threatens ‘Disproportionate’ Response to Rockets,” New York Times, February 1, 2009, and “Israel Vows ‘Disproportionate’ Response to Rockets,” by Jeffrey Heller, Reuters, February 1, 2009.)
“Israel is not a country upon which you fire missiles and it does not respond,” Livni reportedly said on January 12, 2009. “It is a country that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild.” (“Captives,” by Lawrence Wright, The New Yorker, November 9, 2009, and “Israeli Cabinet Divided Over Fresh Gaza Surge,” by Kim Sengupta and Donald Macintyre, Independent, January 13, 2009.) Livni made a similar comment in Hebrew the previous year about the Gaza blockade. “We will not allow them a comfortable and nice life just so that there are no humanitarian violations,” she said on January 22, 2008. “As far as I’m concerned all the fuel can run out and all Gazans can walk.” (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/946759.html)
These statements do not in themselves prove that Israeli leaders ordered indiscriminate attacks or other unlawful measures against civilians. But they should be read in light of the IDF’s conduct in Gaza, including indiscriminate attacks the caused civilian deaths and the large-scale destruction of civilian property. Ongoing restrictions on the import of concrete, glass, food and fuel don’t just prevent Gazans from driving cars but cause extensive blackouts, threaten sewage facilities and prevent reconstruction of homes and schools. In this context, the statements suggest that some IDF violations did not result from the conduct of individual soldiers, but rather from the policy of top officials, who believe that making civilians suffer is a way to undermine Hamas.
At the very least, Israeli leaders should stress that the IDF will abide by the laws of war and target only combatants and military objectives. That is why we welcome this week’s news that the IDF will now consult with the its legal advisers during military operations and increase training on the laws of war (“IDF to Seek Legal Advice During Future Conflicts,” Haaretz, January 6, 2010). If implemented, these changes would demonstrate a commitment to minimize civilian harm.
Quote
January 11, 2010, 11:44 amYankev says:
You have provided zero evidence that non-discriminate attacks occurred. You also overlook that concrete, steel and other construction materials have been used to rebuild Hamas military fortifications, that Hamas has repeatedly (and often forcibly) diverted aid and materials meant for civilians, that Israel has not only allowed but supplied civilian aid on numerous occassions, and that civilian suffering is an unfortunate but foreseeable byproduct of Hamas’ conduct rather than an intended goal of Israel’s response.
Quote
January 12, 2010, 7:43 pm