Hezbollah Rights Watch
Bookworm on Aug 05 2006 at 10:21 am | Filed under: Israel
In a comment to one of my posts, someone suggested that there is proof positive that Israel is the bad guy in all this — Human Rights Watch has condemned it. Clearly, when an organization dedicated to watching out for Human Rights condemns Israel, Israel must be at fault, right? Weeell, not really. HRW has a few problems with Israel, most notably the fact that it is obsessed with it, and disproportionately focuses on its faults to the exclusion of most other actors in the world [article hyperlinks omitted]:
Notable in the second category of reflexive Israel-bashers is Kenneth Roth, whose organization Human Rights Watch posted on its website a statement called “Israel Responsible for Qana Attack: Indiscriminate Bombing in Lebanon a War Crime.” According to his staff biography, Roth, who has been executive director of Human Rights Watch since 1993, “was drawn to the human rights cause in part by his father’s experience fleeing Nazi Germany in 1938.” Roth is a graduate of Yale Law School and Brown University, and served, among other things, as a federal prosecutor for the Iran-Contra investigation.
***
This disproportionate interest in Israel is of course not new to Kenneth Roth and Human Rights Watch. Israeli professor Gerald Steinberg notes:
As a detailed NGO Monitory study has shown, between 2001 and 2004, during the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession. Far more pages, reports, press conferences, letters, films, and photography-exhibits sponsored by HRW were devoted to allegations against Israel than to the slaughter taking place in Sudan, or the Palestinian terror campaign [itself].
And just lately, Roth was involved in an exchange with Israeli law professor Avi Bell and the editors of the New York Sun in that newspaper’s pages. In his July 31 letter to the Sun responding to Bell’s July 25 article there, Roth asserted: “An eye for an eye—or more accurately in this case twenty eyes for an eye—may have been the morality of some more primitive moment.”
The Sun replied that same day in an editorial:
Mr. Roth concludes his letter with a slur on the Jewish religion itself that is breathtaking in its ignorance. . . . To suggest that Judaism is a ‘primitive’ religion incompatible with contemporary morality is to engage in supersessionism, the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism.”
And in Bell’s response, also that day, he noted:
nearly all HRW documents released since the onset of fighting on July 12 . . . focus their very partisan criticisms on Israel. HRW’s and Mr. Roth’s near-silence on Hezbollah’s, Lebanon’s, Syria’s and Iran’s crimes and obsessive accusations about Israel even in the absence of evidence of crimes speak volumes about Mr. Roth’s and his organization’s patently political, non-legal and nonobjective agenda.”
Email This Post To A Friend
8 Responses to “Hezbollah Rights Watch”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Didn’t anyone realize that in a spy organization that you could make use of a number of organizations and groups of people, subverting them to your ends? HRW is simply an arm of the propaganda machine for Israel’s enemies.
In the real world, a world of Byzantine politics where only the best at intrigue survived, the predictability of HRW would have removed their effectiveness. But it seems we live in a time where nobody, absolutely nobody except the enemies of Israel and America, knows anything about intrigue and how to maneuver without warships and nuclear weapons.
I think it has to do with the difference between spies and soldiers, in my view.
If you read this article closely, there is exactly zero proof against any evidence or assertions provided by Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch. Instead (and quite predictably) there is a focus on character assasination.
Well, anyone who can count HRW’s output can assure themselves of the anti-Israel bias. They condemn Israel’s actions at a far greater rate than that of any other country, and certainly in far greater numbers than for any of Israel’s neighbors.
Of course, if you think that the accidental killing of civilians in Lebanon, or in the West Bank, or in Gaza, by the Israeli Army attempting to defend their nation from terrorists is worse than the deliberate suicide bombing murders of civilians in Israel by Arab terrorists, then Clint’s comments make sense. Otherwise, they are just empty words aimed at defending the indefensible.
Earl,
Perhaps there is a reason that they condemn Israel more than their neighbors. Israel is one of the most powerful countries in the world and they have the help of the most powerful military in the history of mankind. It’s like an ant fighting a rhino.
Israel is not one of the most powerful countries in the world. Israel’s power derives from the historical connection as a proxy fighter to the United States of America.
They only have 5 million people. The power of a state can be calculated based upon a few variables and standards, that have not changed since the Summerians.
The amount of wealth in the state coffers. The level of military technology. The experience level and discipline standard of the armies. And the amount of land and numbers of citizens the state holds. Manpower and resources in other words.
Israel’s technology is US technology. There’s about 3 countries in the world that export military warmachines and weapons. That’s the US, France, and Russia. More or less. The Soviets being what they were, the former client states probably have their own arms depot manufacturing businesses going on.
To get to the point, Israel’s technology is not their own, they did not develop it. Israel’s manpower is low, so they are limited in developing their own weapons and technologies. Israel’s amount of wealth is low, because they have fewer citizens to tax than other nations.
Israe’s living standards and per capital wage is much higher, which is how they maintain their economic health, but they are still limited by the absolute numbers of people paying taxes in Israel and powering the economy.
There are about a handful of most powerful countries in the world. Japan, China, the US, and Britain v France v Germany is currently fighting it out for top Euro power. India’s also joining the group sooner or later. Their lack of power projection has currently allowed them to stay in the background at the moment, even with nukes.
Now back to Clint’s comments. He said that it is like an ant fighting a rhino. I think that would be true if Clint and his people were in charge of the rhino. However, since conservatives are in charge of the rhino, what we have is a conservation of power, so the rhino limits its own power, and becomes an ant.
Clint obviously sees no reason a more powerful state would limit its own actions against a weaker state, I’m sure he would take full advantage of power if he had it. So there’s no reason why if you have power, you should refuse to use it, you’re not going to get any support from people like Clint for mercy or compassion. Mercy and compassion are weaknesses, weaknesses that allow people to overcome their fear of your power and attack, because nobody fears power if they know it won’t be used.
I recommend Israel and the US push the limit. People already believe that the genkai have been reached, and people should stop. Push the limit, to show them how much has not been used. They will not be convinced until you demonstrate the full fury of your war machine.
Ymarsakar,
Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. That is a verifiable fact. End of comment on that.
However, since conservatives are in charge of the rhino, what we have is a conservation of power, so the rhino limits its own power, and becomes an ant.”
You must be joking. The history of mankind is the use and misuse of power by just about anyone that has it. Am I suppose to believe Israel is somehow exempt from this?
“Push the limit, to show them how much has not been used. They will not be convinced until you demonstrate the full fury of your war machine.”
Who are you going to convince, the Lebanese? There’s a pretty clear understanding that they’ve gotten the message. In 20 years, these children (who are experiencing their own 9/11) will join the ranks of those fighting against Israeli occupation. And the people who foresaw it will shake their heads at a world that seems to think violence begets anything but more violence.
Clint,
Israel is one of the most powerful countries in the world and they have the help of the most powerful military in the history of mankind. It’s like an ant fighting a rhino.
I disputed whether Israel was one of the most powerful countries, not whether Israel had one of the most powerful military. Saying Israel de facto has a powerful military doesn’t do anything to my argument.
You need more than a good army to have one of the most powerful states.
I think you’re supposed to believe that democracies have a better basis for managing power. Besides, you haven’t answered or read my reply to you here.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/fundamental-truths-deductive-logic.html
If you did, you would understand why Israel can better reign in their power than others.
Relative power relations, or size of armies, or technological comparisons are all attempts to deflect attention from the real issue here. I repeat:
“Of course, if you think that the accidental killing of civilians in Lebanon, or in the West Bank, or in Gaza, by the Israeli Army attempting to defend their nation from terrorists is worse than the deliberate suicide bombing murders of civilians in Israel by Arab terrorists, then Clint’s comments make sense. Otherwise, they are just empty words aimed at defending the indefensible.”
Is the accidental killing of a civilian while attempting to defend against the terrorists morally equivalent to (or worse than) the initial deliberate killing of civilians by the terrorists? Answer that, and we’ll know whether or not we have any basis for a discussion of what is going on in the world’s press.