HRW Press: 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.

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.

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.

Yankev: Ugh. Make that “Who’s projecting.”

It’s the thought that counts, and you got that right.

Yankev: Now whose projecting?

Ugh. Make that “Who’s projecting.”

lgm: For completeness, I also think Hamas would be better off if it respected the human rights of those trying to destroy it’s homeland.

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.

lgm: You’re projecting. I’m in favor of a Jewish state.

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.

lgm: …I also think Hamas would be better off if it respected the human rights of those trying to destroy it’s homeland.

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.

lgm: 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 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.

But it is an undeniable fact that the Israeli actions in Gaza violated the human rights of Gazans.

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 noticed that none of the angry responses to my post denied this, though some gave excuses.

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.

neurodoc 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,

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.

that he has nothing to contribute by way of substantive argument. He hasn’t engaged with Professor Bernstein’s case against HRW,

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.

DG: Someone needs to educate lgm on the difference between a sourcing error and misrepresenting context.

In the immortal words of Dorothy Parker, you can lead a horticulture . . .

Assistant Village Idiot: 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.

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.

Blue Neponset:
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?

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.

The Geneva Conventions—the bedrock of the laws of war and one of the world’s most widely ratified treaties— turned 60 this month. But one government was not celebrating.

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?

lgm: 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?

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.

Bleepless says:

I’m so old, I remember when Human Rights Watch was genuinely concerned with human rights. That dates me.

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?

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.

Bleepless: I’m so old, I remember when Human Rights Watch was genuinely concerned with human rights.

It still is, which is one reason the damage it does to its reputation with its apparent anti-Israel bias is so unfortunate.

“I am not an octopus” – ok, thats a great quote.

That people come to that conclusion so readily may tell us more about them than it does about DB.

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?

lgm: 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.

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?”

International law and a buck-fifty will get you a very cheap cup of coffee.

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?

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.

David Bernstein: As my daughter’s preschool teacher likes to say, “I’m not an octopus.”

So as a non-octopi what conclusions should we draw from the fact that HRW are a bunch of wicked horrible liars?

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?

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.

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.

Aren’t there other organizations who do equally bad work? If so, then why don’t you post about them?

As my daughter’s preschool teacher likes to say, “I’m not an octopus.”

David Bernstein: 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.

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?

lgm: 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.

neurodoc: 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.

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?

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.