A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners?
No, no, no, and no. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson [who Volokh readers have encountered before], highlighted HRW's battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations." (Was Ms. Whitson required to wear a burkha, or are exceptions made for visiting anti-Israel "human rights" activists"? Driving a car, no doubt, was out of the question.)
Apparently, Ms. Whitson found no time to criticize Saudi Arabia's abysmal human rights record. But never fear, HRW "recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers."
H/T: NGO Monitor
UPDATE: Nothing wrong with a human rights organization worrying about maltreatment of domestic workers. But there is something wrong when a human rights organization goes to one of the worst countries in the world for human rights to raise money to wage lawfare against Israel, and says not a word during the trip about the status of human rights in that country. In fact, it's a virtual certainty that everyone in Whitson's audience employs domestic servants, giving her a perfect, untaken opportunity to boast about HRW's work in improving the servants' status. But Whitson wasn't raising money for human rights, she was raising money for HRW's propaganda campaign against Israel.
And in the comments, someone who claims to have worked for HRW writes, "I can tell you that the people on the research and policy side of the organization have little, if any, contacts with people on the donor side." If that's true, apparently this is yet another exception HRW makes for Israel: Ms. Whitson, who gave the presentation to potential Saudi donors, is director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa Division.
Also, a comment by a Nathan Wagner from a post at OpinionJuris criticizing yours truly:
Surely there is a moral difference between raising funds in free nations through appeals to ideals of universal human rights and raising money in repressive nations through appeals highlighting pressure brought against their enemies.
[Moreover], the former type of fundraising does not imperil the organization's mission, but fundraising Bernstein highlights does, since any significan reliance on such funds will necessarily mute criticism of the repressive government.
Finally, some would defend HRW by pointing it that it has criticized Saudi Arabia's human rights record rather severely in the past. The point of my post, though, is not that HRW is pro-Saudi, but that it is maniacally anti-Israel. The most recent manifestation is that its officers see nothing unseemly about raising funds among the elite of one of the most totalitarian nations on earth, with a pitch about how the money is needed to fight "pro-Israel forces," without the felt need to discuss any of the Saudis' manifold human rights violations, and without apparent concern that becoming dependent on funds emanating from a brutal dictatorship leaves you vulnerable to that brutal dictatorship later cutting off the flow of funds, if you don't "behave."
U.S. involvement in the Iranian election controversy in any form is unwise. Except for the most generic statements condemning violence and urging peaceful resolution to the crisis, Washington should say nothing, and I mean nothing. After all, whose interests do we serve by having our government speak up? The casual assumption is that condemning foreign election fraud, of which there was probably a great deal in Iran, is both some kind of moral imperative and a strategically wise thing to do in order to aid Mousavi, which in turn is based on another questionable belief that Westerners are somehow obliged to aid him and his supporters. The first part of this is very dubious, and the second is clearly wrong. * * *
Obama’s statement here seemed appropriate and reasonable for the most part. No speculation on what happened, criticizing the violence and re-stating basic principles about his diplomatic approach--this seemed all right to me on the whole. One might quibble here or there, but I don’t see much that I would criticize. Stressing non-interference and respect for the Iranian people was good.
Of course, the 1st question regarding Israel hawks is, were they (like Daniel Pipes) rooting for the incumbent in the first place?
I wonder if those Saudi donors get to earmark their donations for HRW's attention to Israel.
If you disagree with their assessment of Israel, that's fine, but say it. Don't imply that they have somehow ignored Saudi Arabia or take an inconsistent stand on human rights.
(The above link is split into two parts in order to fit)
Yes, groups that defend the rights of the Palestinians do fund raising from people who support the rights of Palestinians. Big deal.
Because they'd rather be right than have peace.
Just a question, if I may - how do you decide which posts to open comments on? This one and the one on Obama's response to Iran are similar in tone and approach and level of analysis. I expect the threads to be similarly valuable to one another in terms of heat vs. light ratio. The only difference I see is that this one is IMHO likely to draw comment supportive of your view and the Obama one will likely draw a more mixed response, although most commenters here will probably come out where you do. Is it just the difference between criticizing Obama vs. criticizing an NGO? Are there other criteria in play?
FWIW, I like the idea of short comment periods for most of your posts. There is an opportunity for some response, and anything worthwhile is likely to be said early on. Unless it is something that can be automated, though, I understand that it may require more time than you have to give.
It's somehow comforting to know that the Saudi gangsters are this overtly calculating. And, we can go ahead and write-off HRW, at a stroke.
And I mean write them off. They are nothing, now. No charter. Nothing.
.
.
.
Quite right. The mullahs pick these guys, each and every candidate. Ahmadinnerjacket's bluster is no more a threat than any of the other guys', so restraint and silence is the proper approach here.
Do you think that Whitson got these guys into a room and said "Thanks for bankrolling our efforts on the Zionist entity, but let me tell you, Saudi has a lot of problems too ....."
You assume you are talking to people who are in any way inclined to acknowledge the existence of evidence contrary to their opinions.
It's not that I disagree with Larison here, but what makes you conclude that he "knows something about foreign policy"?
I mean, other than the fact that you agree with him frequently.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp? x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1629
I'm puzzled by that, too—It's especially frustrating since two VC contributors take Obama to task for what he has and has not said on Iran, yet neither has provided for comments.
This is too bad, because I don't think that the criticism of the Administration on this point is fair. The fact of the matter is that, whatever happens in Iran, we are going to need to be able to engage the government (whomever that is); a simplistic message of support for Mousavi will not assist in that goal (and probably won't help Mousavi at all).
I am not the only one who thinks this, by the way—this morning, NPR interviewed the Bush Administration's former envoy to Iran, Nicholas Burns, who echoed the sentiments above and said that he thought that Obama had been doing an excellent job of striking the balance between support for the protesters and the need for diplomacy.
NPR Story
The point should be obvious. But I will make it explicitly: HRW apparently made a special pitch to some Saudis to help HRW with its Israel-related activities. Perhaps these Saudi donors are strong activists for human rights worldwide - but what's more likely is that said donors think HRW is a good tool for whacking the Zionists. And Whitson seems to be fine with that.
I don't always agree w/ Larison, but I've been reading him for some time now. I'm sorry to have to plead "familiarity with his writings" as a justification for my opinion about him; it seems quaint.
My objection to the Iran posts is simpler. I simply have no idea what Bernstein is getting at when he says this:
I don't see anything in Obama's comment that suggests confidence that the Iranian government is really looking into irregularities, and as a point of fact we don't have international observers, right? It makes sense to talk as if you are assuming the election recount will be serious - it sets the stage for when the election recount comes in and it is a joke, as I'm sure Obama knows it will be, he can then act genuinely disappointed.
Obama has to talk like a diplomat because - get this - he's engaged in international diplomacy.
The point seems obvious to me that DB is not regarding the abuse of domestic workers as trivial, but is noting the many uncomfortable things that HRW is not bringing up to its potential sponsors. If HRW were soliciting funds from white supremacist organizations, which would be the rough equivalent of soliciting from Saudis, I imagine they would receive criticism for that - even if the funds were solicited for the protection of some deserving white person's cause. True?
It is clear that
thosesome who object to Bernstein's posts are responding to his general beliefs rather than taking the posts in turn. Such folks would be wise to remember what usually results from such attitudes.Fixed. You can disagree with HRW on the merits for their position vis a vis Israel/Palestine, but there is nothing wrong with an organization that supports Palestinian human rights raising money from people who support that cause.
His name is properly pronouced "Iminajihad".
They're not supposed to have a "position vis a vis Israel/Palestine", as they portray themselves as a generic human rights organization. But it's telling that you think that they do.
but there is nothing wrong with an organization that supports Palestinian human rights raising money from people who support that cause.
As I said, if these Saudi donors are supporters of human rights worldwide that's one thing. But if they only support "Palestinian human rights" and not elsewhere then that says something about them.
And it also says something about the NGO doing the canvassing.
Additionally: there's the reality that all NGOs are influenced by their major donors.
Well, sure, if by "selling weapons to both sides," you mean "trying to cut off the supply of weapons to both sides."
You are making a completely different point than what I am making. Again, if DB thought that the problem was HRW complacency with Saudis using them as a whacking tool against Israel. I did not take that to be his argument. I took his argument to be that HRW is inconsistent because they raised money from Saudis for anti-Israel activities but were otherwise silent on Saudi human rights abuses. I took that to be the implication of this paragraph:
I thought this implication was wrong, because HRW has been anything but silent on Saudi human rights abuses. Again, HRW's activities are certainly open to criticism. I did not think DB's particular implication that they were somehow hypocrites for raising money from Saudis without, at the same time, raising every concern they had about Saudi human rights abuses was a valid one.
Assistant Village Idiot:
I would agree with your white supremicist analogy except that I did not understand HRW to be raising money from the Saudi government. The mere fact that the donors are Saudi does not necessarily mean that they are the perpetrators of the human rights abuses. If we knew more about the specific donors, then I think some criticism may be warranted. I did not see that from this article.
Fixed it... etc.
Stop being coy. What does it say about them? That they live in the real world, where NGOs will take money from whoever offers it. Like Clay Davis said, I'll take anybody's money if they're giving it away.
What would be a meaningful accusation would be if there was evidence that, because they take money from Saudis, they are hesitant to criticize Saudi human rights abuses. If there's a case to be made against HRW on that, it hasn't been made here.
Apparently not. Instead you appear to have spotted an article that you could point to to put up a snide post about on an NGO you don't like, not thinking that you come off as a callous jackass in the process. Which, I guess at least in that respect the post was informative.
Wow.
In your mind everyone from that country is the rough equivalent of a white supremacist?
spent any time in the Kingdom? I am guessing not.
HRW has conducted demonization of Israel. Read what Anne Bayefsky has written about HRW's Kenneth Roth at the Durban conference. Google Whitson and also her deputy director Joe Stork. Also you can look up what HRW was saying about the Jenin pseudo-massacre.
But he's a law student at Georgetown and knows that no culture is better than any other.
They should have revoked tax-exempt status for NGOs ages ago, most are little more than thinly-concealed lobbying groups.
That's fine. As my comment suggested, I think he's on to something. The wisdom of a wait-and-see approach to difficult problems is - or should be - axiomatic for all conservatives.
However, his advice here is indicative of a lack of substantive knowledge about foreign policy with respect to Iran. His argument is, essentially, "better to do nothing than to stab blindly in the direction that we think is correct." And if you're ignorant, yes, that's the best strategy. But not everyone is ignorant, and there may in fact be steps that the West should be taking during this crisis. Just because Larison doesn't know what to do does not mean that someone better informed cannot come up with a solution. Larison gets points for restraint, humility, and wisdom, but not for foreign policy expertise.
As for what sort of conservative Larison is, well, I don't profess to understand the taxonomy of the right. Is he a Paleocon? I do know that his thorough rejection of the Enlightenment means that he cannot reasonably be considered a classical liberal. Are classical liberals =/= paleocons? I have no idea, but that does not strike me as correct.
I agree completely. Is there any reason to believe Bernstein and Lindgren are better informed?
Anyone with enough money to give to HRH is.
If HRH wants to raise money from Jew haters, that is their right but it is our right to attack them for it.
If someone will pay you for a speech, fine. Talk is cheap and cash is hard currency. But if you're an NGO that bases its entire existence around concepts of decency and morality; whose only tools are words, reports, and Western nations' willingness to be guilted into action; and who endlessly pushes the whole "moral high ground" notion... then yes, you get to be called on your crass hypocrisy when you trade words for money.
I don't know what current exchange rate for an NGO lending an offending regime some of its moral legitimacy. But even with inflation and the weaker dollar, I would expect fig leafs to sell for more than what Whitson took home from Saudi Arabia.
For some reason I suspect there are at least a few wealthy Saudis who could not be classified as a "Jew hater."
yeah, you can tell that all people from Saudi Arabia are a bunch of bigots by the way they make broad defamatory generalizations about all people of a nation or ethnic group.
As someone said above, it would be like visiting KKK headquarters -- and giving a speech about the importance of your work protecting whites from black people -- to solicit money from the organization to protect, say, the whites of Zimbabwe from Mugabe.
Even trying to categorize the Saudi government is problematic as it does not hold a single viewpoint on all issues, including Israel.
If you have any evidence of a quid pro quo, then show it. But you don't.
As someone who has worked for HRW in the past, I can tell you that the people on the research and policy side of the organization have little, if any, contacts with people on the donor side. Accusing the people who devote their lives with little pay to defending the human rights of people around the globe of professional misconduct with absolutely zero evidence is obnoxious and irresponsible. But that's pretty much the standard operating procedure for Bernstein.
We want Iran to plunge into civil conflict. It will detract from their ability to obtain nuclear weapons. It will weaken their regional power aspirations. It may even weaken Hamas and Hezbollah by reducing Iranian support.
Stability in Iran is not a good thing.
I think Larison does not want anyone to interfere with Iran's bomb making. Exactly what you'd expect from a Buchanan confederate.
BTW, funny how I only see liberals praise Larison and Buchanan's magazine these days.
Strange bedfellows.
The government of Saudi Arabia commit human rights abuses. Do we have any evidence that the people who donated to HRW have committed human rights abuses, or are we just categorically judging them by their nationality?
Do I really have to explain to people the difference between membership in a white supremacy organization and membership in a nation? Let's start with the fact that you can't choose your national identity, you're born into it.
The bigotry in this post and on this thread is pretty intense.
This is the third paragraph of the article:
I guess maybe you didn't read that far?
Yes, they are being judged categorically by their nationality, which is that of an islamofascist totalitarian nation, in total control of social norms, and almost all public and private activities. You've admitted that that totalitarian nation has committed human rights abuses, and they fall under that flag. Thus their motives and contributions are strongly suspect, and HRW has forfeited all credibility in taking them.
I'd guess most white supremacists are born into their lot, as well. This remains a strong analogy, which is likely why you're flailing against it.
Let me know if either of these peer groups ever welcome any Jew onto their turf.
I know a family of American Jews that lived in Saudi Arabia.
Strange bedfellows.
Larison sees all post-Enlightenment conservatism as liberalism, which he rejects in all its forms. That includes the form of conservatism that can be considered "classical liberalism." In fact, Burke(!) is too much of a liberal for him. So of course Larison is going to attack modern conservatives a lot, and will please the left in doing so: the left may be wrong, but modern conservatives are wrong AND impostors.
So what does Larison want to do with conservatism? He wants to get medieval on its ass:Now, you might think that someone who believes that conservatism must become essentially synonymous with Catholicism/Orthodoxy would earn Andrew Sullivan's famed "Christianist" label. But Larison is no Christianist in Sully's book; he's got a lot of negative things to say about Bush, the war on terror, and modern conservatism, so Sully not only spares him the "Christianist" label; he makes him a guest blogger.
Strange bedfellows, indeed.
To be neurotically exact, the article doesn't outright state that the attendees actually gave money to HRW. But then again, it also doesn't state that the HRW people included any bad reports about Saudi Arabia at the event either. The paragraph you glommed onto, talking about HRW's documentation of SA's treatment of workers, is actually referring to "a statement in March" and not to the delegation's words; the previous paragraph touting HRW's "even-handed criticism" is even more vague, saying "the organization recently called on the Kingdom to do more".
So what? This is still a failing of the organization as a whole.
What was involved in your work with HRW? Did you monitor such contacts, or are you just making it up as you go?
Claiming that HRW is devoted to defending human rights "of people" is silly. And to say that they defend the rights of some doesn't excuse their selective approach. Congratulations, they earlier made a token display over domestic workers before emphasizing their anti-Israel efforts to drum up more cash. Not impressed.
I can't say I doubt you worked for HRW. Here you are absolutely livid about perceived bigotry in a single blog post critical of Saudi Arabia and HRW, while ignoring Saudi Arabia's treatment of homosexuals and women, and of its broader lack of freedoms for all. If nothing else, you folks have the talking points down pat.
It's almost, as if, you are dismayed that there are human rights activists from Saudi Arabia, at all.
We want Iran to plunge into civil conflict. It will detract from their ability to obtain nuclear weapons. It will weaken their regional power aspirations. It may even weaken Hamas and Hezbollah by reducing Iranian support."
Because this strategy has worked so well in other places, such as Iraq?
Because this strategy has worked so well in other places, such as Iraq?
Without agreeing with Bob Ohio, I do think there's a difference between an unstable Iraq and an unstable Iran. The civil unrest in Iraq directly threatens the lives of Americans. A civil war within Iran won't. This is not to say that a civil war within Iran would be a net good, or would not ultimately result in more harm to the U.S.
1) they hate Jews;
2) they support Saudi human rights policies related to women, gays, domestic workers, etc.
3) they are motivated, not by a desire to help Palestinians, but by antipathy to Israel;
4) their donations are not meant to defend the rights of Palestinians but to engage in "lawfare" (a nihilistic and relativistic word if ever there was one) against Israel.
I guess it's fine to write insular articles that are basically meant for the ideologically like-minded, but you should realize that you haven't said anything that would have any significance to someone who isn't already entrenched in the Likudnik worldview. I mean, if you assume that advocating for Palestinian human rights is analogous to an act of warfare, then it's pretty obvious that you're going to hate HRW and make derogatory assumptions about anyone who donates to them.
Independent of your substantive disagreement, I don't see any ethical problem accepting or soliciting donations from people who live in a country where human rights violations are committed, or giving a speech that emphasizes the work that your NGO does that a prospective donor would agree with rather than work that might be controversial. HRW might, I suppose, be acting in a way that is commendable if they really stick it to their hosts with lots of condemnations of Saudi abuses when they travel to Saudi Arabia, but I don't see how they are doing anything wrong by having a dinner in which they emphasize their work on behalf of the Palestinians.
FTR, I should really back down from my statement about the organizational structure of HRW - I was only an intern there, and the only thing I know for sure is that I never saw anyone talk about donors or that side of things at all. And given the kind of people who work there, I find it hard to believe that they would care.
[Moreover], the former type of fundraising does not imperil the organization's mission, but fundraising Bernstein highlights does, since any significan reliance on such funds will necessarily mute criticism of the repressive government."
Surely, I wonder. If you are a Saudi actvist working against about underage executions or women's rights in Saudi Arabia and critical of Isreal, are you immoral?
I'd be willing to bet anyone here $100 that Human Rights Watch receives more donations from Israeli citizens than Saudi citizens.
Barb, if HRW becomes dependent on Saudi money, but can only enter the country or receive funds at the sufferance of the Saudi government, you don't think that has the potential to affect HRW's M.E. agenda?
"Lawfare" is a piece of conservative spin with no objective meaning-- it is basically used as an epithet against any attempt to hold combatants (or combatants who one approves of) to any legal standard.
I am not saying that there are not legitimate criticisms of HRW. But if you want any credibility, don't use the term "lawfare". It's a Rush Limbaugh term.
It's just like serious critics of liberal judges don't say "liberal judges make up the law; conservatives believe in following the law as written". That's sort of the badge of an UN-serious critic.
I'd be willing to bet anyone here $100 that Human Rights Watch receives more donations from Israeli citizens than Saudi citizens.
If you mean by "more donations" that more individual Israelis than Saudis give money to HRW, I wouldn't take that bet. But if you mean that the actual cash from Saudis is less than the actual cash from Israelis, I think I would. Clarify (with stipulations as to how you would prove the contention), and we're on -- for the latter interpretation.
Look, the whole idea of HRW hitting up rich Israelis for money with which to combat Saudi human rights abuses is so absurd that I doubt anyone will take up my hypothetical of a HRW delegation to Israel for that purpose even so far as to find out whether it ever happened. But for all I know, it may have. Can anyone positively disprove it?
Maybe HRW has been scrupulously evenhanded in asking for donations, only using in every case the worst actions of a given country's worst enemies as examples of the sort of thing the group exists to combat. Then we ought to see fundraising appeals pitched to Saudis and other Muslims about HRW's actions on behalf of the Palestinians, and also other fundraising appeals pitched to Israelis about the House of Saud, its government, and what it does to women and to the quasi-slaves who provide most of the state's domestic labor.
I'm sure the latter appeal must be kicking around the HRW office somewhere. Can some kind person please post it? along with, of course, the delegation to Israel that made the case for it? It really doesn't have to have been recent; anything in the last decade would do.
That's alot of "if" innuendo, you have going on there Proffessor. If HRW becomes a front for reactionary SA, then by definition it is compromised but, since it gets funding from Isreali's and many others, even your innuendo is not supporte by your supposition.
You will have to do it by invitation, of course, since it is not a tourist destination and for all purposes a closed county. You will have to surrender your passport when you arrive and get an internal passport. But the food is good, the gold plentiful, and there are hot and cold running ex-pat nurses--just dont get caught with one on the road blocks that are put up around town. And after your year in the Kingdom, get back to us and tell us what you learned. I suspect it will be far more valuable than your internship at HRW and your law school experience.
Nah, I don't think you're a bigot, I got that your comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I have been to the Middle East and I don't think I have much by way of illusions about the degree of bigotry possessed by people on both sides of the Arab / Israeli conflict.
Deposed a dictator who murdered ca. 10,000 of his own people a year, used rape and torture as methods of social control, and diverted humanitarian aid meant for infants and medical care to fund palaces, luxuries and military spending - CHECK.
Deposed his son who tortured athletes as punishment for losing international competitions -- CHECK.
Disabled research into WMD that (even according to those who say there were no WMDs at the time of invasion)was poised to resume the moment he had bribed enough of our allies at the UN so that the UN would drop its sanctions -- CHECK.
Ended $25,000 subsidy to suicide bombers who committed mass murder of civilians (paid as a survivor benefit to their families, of course) -- CHECK.
Focussed Iraqis on fighting each other instead of furnishing cooperation and support for various anti-Us and anti-Israel terror groups -- CHECK.
Shifted the focus of Iraq and regional terror groups from attacks outside Iraq to attacks inside Iraq -- CHECK.
Not an unmixed success, I will grant you, particularly since it removed a check on Iran's power and weakened US will to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and funding and arming Hexbollah and Hamas. But there was not a lot of US will on those issues to start with. Certainly not a total failure.
As Dan28 intimated, HRW probably gets enough money from Israelis (including Israelis who applaud the way it criticizes Saudi abuses as well as Israeli abuses) that it doesn't need to make special trips to Israel to beg for donations there.
As Dan28 intimated, HRW probably gets enough money from Israelis (including Israelis who applaud the way it criticizes Saudi abuses as well as Israeli abuses) that it doesn't need to make special trips to Israel to beg for donations there.
You may well be right; certainly there are prominent Israelis who agree with HRW about Israeli behavior towards Palestinians. Prominent Saudis who agree with HRW about Saudi policy towards domestic workers (or women, or gays, or non-Muslims) are rarer, I'm afraid. (Are there any? Living in the country itself, I mean, rather than abroad?)
At some point the needle on the irony-meter has to hit the edge of the dial, right? Are we expecting similar HRW delegations to Iran and Sudan and China and North Korea and Burma? I mean, all of them must contain some rich people who would like to see some country attacked for human rights abuses, even if it's only us.
Bernstein is also busted for clearly trying to imply that HRW ignores human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, an implication that has been thoroughly debunked by several commenters here.
Google Wajeha Al Huwaider. Obviously, Saudi civil rights workers are invisible to you (and apparently the professor) because you condemn anyone who would even think of going to Saudi Arabia to even have a dinner with them.
The documented second class citizenship of Arab Israelis (laws that apply to them but not to Jewish Israelis),
This kind of remark (ie. sneering and totally false) is typical of HRW groupies..
Once again, Sarah Leah Whitson almost certainly DID ignor that report when doing her powerpoint slides for the Saudi group. Which demonstrates how HRW compromises its supposed objectives (as reflected in selected paragraphs of reports on its website) in its emphasis on Israel and/or pursuit of funding.
of Scientology in order to intimidate and silence its critics?
Besides, in Europe, we've had a few attempts to suppress politically incorrect speakers by invoking various hate speech legislations against them, even though the speeches mentioned are far from incitement to violence. Broadening and expansion of such laws under pressure of lobby groups is also attempted. And some of the attempts were successful. For example, in Sweden or Belgium, you have to be really careful about what you say. Being a "bigot" is an offence there.
How to call this method of fighting opponents by law, if not "lawfare"?
"The only difference I see is that this one is IMHO likely to draw comment supportive of your view"
That drew a chuckle. Read the comments preceding your own. I've noticed that I'm most vociferous in protest when my mind is about to change regarding a formerly cherished way of looking at the world.
Keep up the good work, DB.
dan28, there are simply too many items to refute in one post. I will therefore challenge directly what seems to be an undergirding point of your comments: that it is unfair to hold wealthy Saudis attending an HRW fundraiser as directly responsible for human rights abuses in SA. That sounds very objective and fairminded on the surface, but it reveals - better than anything else that you write - that you do not know how Saudi Arabian power operates. You speculate that there must be some Saudis who do not hate Jews, and so should not be lumped in with the government. That would be more persuasive if any of them had actually gone on record in the last few decades.
You dislike people generalizing about a group in negative fashion without knowing the population exhaustively. It is just as logically weak, dangerous, and even morally wrong to generalize about them in a positive way based on your assumption of what everyone in the world must be like, due to your being raised in a rights-protecting western society. Go to the dark places of the world a few times and see if you come back agreeing.
I don't see anything in the Arab News story saying that she didn't attack "S.A.'s human rights record." It was silent about whether she addressed human rights in Saudi Arabia in that particular presentation. So if it turns out that she did address human rights in South Africa, that will not be "contrary to the report in Arab News," but supplementary to that report.
(The only thing the article said, one way or the other, about Saudi Arabia's human rights record was to note that, "[k]eeping with its mission of even-handed criticism, Human Rights Watch has also leveled criticism at other states in the region, including Saudi Arabia.")
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.