How HRW and Amnesty twist international law against Israel: The Nottebohm Case

One of the most bizarre claims made by anti-Israel activists is that the fictional "right to return" applies not only to Arabs who fled their homes in 1948, but also to their descendants, forever.

But it is not only the explicit Israel-haters who make this argument. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claim that such a right exists - and they further claim that it is a right under international law.

Amnesty's policy statement on the matter was written in 2001; HRW's in 2002.

Both use similar arguments.

First they quote the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says "'No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

They then quote the UN Human Rights Committee to interpret the statement as meaning that "his own country" does not necessarily mean a state.

The scope of 'his own country' is broader than the concept 'country of his nationality'. It is not limited to nationality in a formal sense, that is, nationality acquired at birth or by conferral; it embraces, at the very least, an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien....Since other factors may in certain circumstances result in the establishment of close and enduring connections between a person and a country, States parties should include in their reports information on the rights of permanent residents to return to their country of residence.

How does one define "special ties" and "close and enduring connections"?

Both HRW and Amnesty pretend that the definition can be determined from the Nottebohm Case, a 1955 ruling by the International Court of Justice that changed the definition of nationality in certain cases. By using Nottebohm, the organizations are claiming that international law supports the "right to return" - not only for refugees but also for descendants.

Amnesty quotes this part of Nottebohm as their definition of "close and enduring connections":

"...a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments..."

Both Amnesty and HRW also quote this section:

"Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: there is the habitual residence of the individual concerned but also the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc."

Both HRW and Amnesty are misrepresenting Nottebohm. In fact, an unbiased reading of the Nottebohm case would indicate the exact opposite to what they are claiming.

Let's look at the full context of the first Amnesty quote, italicizing the specific part quoted:

According to the practice of States, to arbitral and judicial decisions and to the opinions of writers, nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be said to constitute the juridical expression of the fact that the individual upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as the result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the State conferring nationality than with that of any other State. . Conferred by a State, it only entitles that State to exercise protection vis-a-vis another State, if it constitutes a
translation into juridical terms of the individual's connection with the State which has made him its national.

Amnesty took the quote out of context, and in context it shows that Nottebohm is specifically speaking about legal citizenship, not a tenuous link with an area that one's ancestors lived. It is talking about the reciprocal relationship between a state and its nationals.

Here's the full context of the other quote:

International arbitrators have decided in the same way numerous casés of dual nationality, where the question arose with regard to the exercise of protection. They have given their preference to the real and effective nationality, that which accorded with the facts, that based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the States whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitua1 residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc.

The ICJ is very clear that it is talking about the relationship between an individual and the State, not between him and the place his grandfather may have lived.

In the case of Israel, it is clear that the Arabs wishing to "return" are not interested in any "reciprocal rights and duties" that citizenship demands. They don't identify with Israel, so the demand that they can become Israeli citizens based on Nottebohm is exactly the opposite of reality. Unlike the ICCPR's use of the word "country," Nottebohm uses the unambiguous word "State" to determine whether one's ties are genuine and effective. There is no indication that Nottebohm would consider Palestinian refugees and their descendants to have any links to Israel, which has a completely different culture than the Levant of a hundred years ago.

Other parts of the ICJ ruling make Israel's rights even more explicit:

The character thus recognized on the international level as pertaining to nationality is in no way inconsistent with the fact that international law leaves it to each State to lay down the rules governing the grant of its own nationality. The reason for this is that the diversity of demographic conditions has thus far made it impossible for any general agreement to be reached on the rules relating to nationality, although the latter by its very nature affects international relations. It has been considered that the best way of making such rules accord with the varying demographic conditions in different countries is to leave the fixing of such rules to the competence of each State.

Nottebohm shows that Israel has the sole right to determine who can be a citizen and who cannot.

To apply Nottebohm as an interpretation of the UNHRC's comment is knowingly deceptive. And both HRW and Amnesty extend the deception by pretending that their misinterpretation of the ICJ would also apply to descendants, who supposedly also maintain "genuine and effective links" to a state that never existed.

Beyond that, both HRW and Amnesty - by insisting that Israel give citizenship to a population that is by and large hostile to Israel - are ignoring the Hague definition as well as the European Convention on Nationality, which states

"Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be accepted by other States in so far as it is consistent with applicable international conventions, customary international law and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality."

Thsi is fully consistent with Nottebohm, and completely inconsistent with Amnesty and HRW - unless they are arguing that Israel itself is illegitimate.

Furthermore, the entire point of Nottebohm's "genuine and effective ties" test was not to force a state to grant citizenship based on those criteria, as Amnesty and HRW insist, but to allow a state not to accept the citizenship of a person in another state if he doesn't have such ties. (Briefly, Nottebohm lived in Guatemala but had German citizenship; at the outbreak of WWII he changed his citizenship to Lichtenstein, but Guatemala didn't accept that quickie conversion and regarded him as an enemy alien when he tried to return in 1943.) To generalize from Nottebohm to the "right to return" is more than a stretch - it is a completely novel interpretation.

In fact, the ICJ ruled that the only country that Nottebohm truly had genuine ties to was - Guatemala! Yet it did not insist that Guatemala accept him as a citizen, while - if the case supported the "right to return" - it would have forced Guatemala to do exactly that. Indeed, the ICJ accepted that Lichtenstein had the right to apply its own laws of citizenship domestically - it was only ruling whether other countries must accept that citizenship if it appeared to be a sham.

In short, on a number of levels, the Nottebohm case proves that there is no "right to return," that Israel has the full right to determine who its citizens are, and that the "genuine and effective ties" test is meant for ties to a state, not to a land.

Beyond this, HRW - while acknowledging how badly Arab states have treated their Palestinian "guests" - does not call on Arab states to abide by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which states in Article 34: "The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees." Neither, apparently, does Amnesty, as its report on discrimination against Palestinians in Lebanon never urges naturalization for those who want to become Lebanese citizens.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that HRW and Amnesty are purposefully twisting international law in two separate but related ways. On the one hand, they are misinterpreting international law to destroy Israel demographically, creating a standard that they demand of no other country. On the other hand, they  are ignoring international conventions and simple morality by placing no obligations on Arab states to end their discrimination against Palestinian Arabs and their right to citizenship if they so desire. (As we have shown countless times, Palestinian Arabs who are given the rare opportunity to become citizens of Arab countries will not hesitate to take advantage of it.)

Instead of caring about human rights, these organizations are denying the rights of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who desire to integrate into the countries that they were born into and raised in, and they insist that Israel - and only Israel - doesn't have the right to determine who is allowed to become a citizen.

This is a travesty of both international law and human rights.

Read More

EoZ, StandWithUs Khaybar petitions delivered to Amnesty, HRW

Over the summer I blogged extensively about the antisemitic Arab TV series "Khaybar" that was being broadcast during Ramadan, and I created a petition for Amnesty and HRW to condemn Arab antisemitism.

Yesterday and today, my petitions along with those from StandWithUs were delivered to AI and HRW.

Here is the press release from StandWithUs:

Delivery of petition to AI in London

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 2013
On October 2, 2013, StandWithUs, in partnership with Israel activist blogger Elder of Ziyon, delivered petitions to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in London, asking them to support tolerance and human rights by condemning and exposing anti-Semitism in Arab media. The petitions, “Condemn Khaybar”and “End Bigotry and Incitement against Jews on Arab Television,”  were delivered by Irene Naftalin, Community Director of StandWithUs UK, together with Luke Akehurst, Director, We Believe in Israel.  The petitions were delivered to Amnesty International in New York on October 3, by Avi Posnick, Regional Coordinator, New York Chapter, StandWithUs East Coast.  They have over 6,000 international signatures.

    StandWithUs and Elder of Ziyon contacted the two human rights organizations, urging them to use this opportunity to expose, condemn and end anti-Semitic programming in the Arab world. Both organizations have previously pledged to oppose anti-Semitic discrimination. This summer, Human Rights Watch called for an end to religious hate speech in the Arab world. At past conferences, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International condemned all manifestations of anti-Semitism  and called for swift and thorough investigations into incidents of anti-Semitic discrimination.

Delivering petitions to HRW in NYC

  The petitions focused on a Middle Eastern television series, "Khaybar," which promoted hatred and glorified violence against Jews.  The show’s title alone memorialized the massacre of Jewish people in the city of Khaybar during the time of Mohammed. The program was broadcast to millions of people this summer during Ramadan and also was available to many more outside the Arab world via the web. It is representative of the kind of anti-Semitic broadcasts airing regularly throughout the Arab/Muslim world.

    “We hope that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International recognize this opportunity to join the effort to oppose anti-Semitic bigotry,” stated Roz Rothstein, CEO of StandWithUs.

Elder of Ziyon is one of the world's most popular bloggers. His scoops have been reported in major media worldwide. Visit: elderofziyon.blogspot.com

StandWithUs (SWU) is a twelve year-old, international, non-profit Israel education organization that supports people around the world who want to educate their campuses and communities about Israel. Based in Los Angeles, the organization has chapters throughout the U.S., Israel, Toronto and the UK including New York.

Read More

Clueless reporters, "experts" cannot distinguish Temple Mount from Al Aqsa Mosque

Here is a Reuters photo and caption:

A Palestinian uses a sling to throw a stone at Israeli security forces during clashes in the West Bank city of Hebron September 27, 2013. Israeli police clashed with Palestinian protesters in Jerusalem's Old City, the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank on Friday, reflecting growing tensions over an increase in Jewish visits to the al-Aqsa mosque. REUTERS/Darren Whiteside

Notice how heroic the young man looks! Notice the angle of the photo, with the photographer in front of the slinger - normally a dangerous place to be. How likely is it that this photo was staged just for Reuters?

Oh, about 99%.

But lets look at the caption. It claims that the reason for these clashes are because more Jews are visiting the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Only one problem: No Jews visit the Al Aqsa Mosque. Period.

Muslims like to refer to the entire Temple Mount as the Al Aqsa Mosque, and as a result Western "experts" often believe them. Here is the truth, as simply as I could show it:

Lest you think that Reuters is the only organization that parrots Arab lies about "Jews storming the Al Aqsa Mosque," here is how Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division, described Ariel Sharon's 2000 visit to the Temple Mount in 2010:

Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the site of the Al Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem on September 29, 2000, and the response of Israeli security forces to Palestinian protestors, led to sustained clashes involving Israeli forces and armed Palestinians in what became known as the Al Aqsa intifada, or uprising.

To describe the Temple Mount as merely "the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque" would be akin to calling Manhattan "the site of Central Park." In fact, Human Rights Watch not once uses the proper term "Temple Mount" (or even the Arabic equivalent, "Haram al-Sharif") on its website.

Muslims like to say that Jews are "storming the Al Aqsa Mosque" because that helps characterize Jews as aggressively attacking a Muslim holy place. Western "experts" should know better.

Yesterday, I tweeted HRW asking a simple question:

Yes or no, @KenRoth and @HRW : Do you support the human right of Jews to freely visit and pray at their holiest place?
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) September 30, 2013

Of course, I didn't get a response. Because the human rights of Jews to have access to their own holy sites are not as important as the threat of violence by Muslims, and HRW makes a mockery of its pretense to care about "human rights" when it makes such calculations. Unless a reporter corners a HRW representative and asks him this question point blank, we will never get an answer from them.

Read More

Lebanon barring Palestinians refugees from Syria

Once again, the Arab world shows its derision for their Palestinian brethren. And once again, the world ignores blatant discrimination against Palestinians - when done by Arabs.

From HRW:

The Lebanese government began on August 6, 2013, to bar Palestinians from entering the country from Syria. Refusing to allow asylum seekers to enter the country violates Lebanon’s international obligations.

Two Palestinians told Human Rights Watch that they were among about 200 Palestinian asylum seekers barred from crossing the border, after Lebanese General Security on August 6 abruptly changed its entry policies for Palestinians living in Syria.

The Palestinians stranded at Lebanon’s border include entire families, children, the elderly, and the sick. Some spent the night in the area between the two countries’ border posts, fearing for their safety if they returned to Syria, without shelter or bathroom facilities. Some have family members waiting for them in Lebanon. Others say they have no homes to return to in Syria as they have been destroyed during the war, or no money to return home, even if it were safe.

A Palestinian asylum seeker stuck at the border told Human Rights Watch that at approximately 6:45 p.m. on August 6, Lebanese border guards told him and other Palestinian asylum seekers waiting to enter that the guards had received a call from the Lebanese General Security office telling them not to allow any more Palestinians to enter the country. After this announcement, the only Palestinians allowed to enter Lebanon were Palestinians with Lebanese wives or mothers, or who had plane tickets to leave Beirut that day. General Security made no public announcement of the change in policy.

Lebanon is still allowing tens of thousands of Syrians to enter the country. It is only discriminating against Palestinians.

Jordan has a similar policy and Egypt also discriminates against Palestinian Syrians.

Blatant, explicit and rampant discrimination against Palestinian Arabs happens every day, and is indeed enshrined in the laws of every Arab country which does not allow them to become citizens while all other Arabs can.

Keep this in mind the next hundred times you hear Arabs say that the "Palestinian issue" is their number one priority, and the key to solving all the problems in the region. They don't mean that they care about Palestinians - it means that they regard the destruction of Israel is their number one priority, and the Palestinian Arabs are useful only as pawns in that goal.

In reality, the Arab world hates Palestinians nearly as much as they hate Jews.

But there are no "pro-Palestinian" groups that can be bothered to point that out.

Read More

ADL condemns "Khaybar" miniseries; HRW, Amnesty remain silent

The ADL has condemned the "Khaybar" miniseries that started broadcasting this week throughout the Arab world.

From The Algemeiner:

The Anti Defamation League (ADL) Thursday condemned as “vehemently anti-Semitic” the TV miniseries “Khaybar” currently being aired in the Middle East and across the Arab World.

“With Syria, Egypt and other countries in the Middle East going through historical upheavals, it is absurd and outrageous that the entertainment of the Ramadan season promotes the Muslim subjugation of caricatured Jews,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

“The uprisings in the Arab and Muslim world have revealed a hunger among much of the Middle East for democracy, accountability and the development of effective civil and pluralistic society.  Khaiber and other productions of its ilk represent the old detrimental approach of promoting Muslim societal unity through focusing hatred on Jews and Israel,” Foxman said.

The multi-million dol­lar tele­vi­sion series produced by Echo Media Qatar dramatizes the ancient battle between Muslims and the Jews of the town of Khaybar in Arabia and depicts Jews as the enemy of Islam.

Earlier this week  the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released a video of the stars of “Khaybar,” that captures them making inflammatory and anti-Semitic remarks. One actor says that all Jews think about “is making money,” while another says that Jews “have no moral values.”

Jewish human rights group, the Simon Wiesenthal Center also criticized the series on Tuesday.

Last month anonymous blogger Elder of Ziyon oversaw the delivery of a petition, urging mainstream human rights groups to condemn “Khaybar,” to the New York City headquarters of both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Thus far he says that both organizations have failed to respond to his overtures.

Neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International responded to detailed requests from The Algemeiner for comment.

Khaybar is airing throughout Ramadan, a holy month of fasting in Islam and the prime television season in the Muslim world.

Today, pro­test­ers at anti-Israel ral­lies around the world often evoke the bat­tle of the town of Khaybar in their chants to gal­va­nize supporters.

“Those who are rallying for a new society across the region must reject the anti-Semitism promoted in this television series,” Foxman said. “Faith leaders in the Muslim world should also unite in rejecting attempts to revive age-old hatreds.”

And so should "human rights" organizations.

In this case, the ADL condemnation is on its website, so at least the Jewish media should pick up on this pretty soon; with luck the mainstream media will as well.

The petition to HRW and Amnesty is here. Every signature triggers emails to the appropriate HRW and Amnesty official.

The Facebook page where I post all my Khaybar updates is here.

Read More

Wiesenthal Center condemns "Khaybar"; chides HRW, Amnesty

From The Algemeiner:

Actors from an anti-Semitic miniseries set to air this month in the Arab world have further confirmed their show’s hateful message in a series of interviews compiled by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

MEMRI released video Tuesday of the stars of “Khaybar,” set to air in Egypt this month, that captures them making inflammatory and anti-Semitic remarks. One actor says that all Jews think about “is making money.” Another says that Jews “have no moral values,” while another explains that the purpose of the show is to portray Jews as the enemy of Islam.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The Algemeiner that the mainstream appeal is deeply unsettling and that it proves that “Jew has become a dirty word in the world.”

“The fact that we now have the proliferation–and if you will the fine-tuning–of this kind of hateful imagery on satellite TV and on the internet is devastating. To undo that kind of hatred will take at least a generation. And the spillover is dramatic,” he said.

“We’re not talking about rabble rousers in the streets. This is a sophisticated production that will have commercials attached to it and it shows its becoming embedded in their cultures,” he added.

One of the show’s writers, Yusri al-Jindy, attempted further to validate the corrosive intent of the series, saying in an interview in June with Al-Masry Al-Youm , an Egypt-based daily news­paper, that it is meant  “to expose the naked truth about the Jews and stress that they can­not be trusted.”

Anonymous blogger Elder of Ziyon has written extensively about the program and has even spearheaded a petition against it. In an email to The Algemeiner he slammed the international community for its silence on the issue.

“The video shows clearly that the series is not meant to be a historical drama, but a thin excuse to incite Arabs and Muslims against Jews. The screenwriter says so and the actors know it. This is a violation of international law, as specified in The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightswhich states that ‘Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.’”

Last month he oversaw the delivery of the petition to the New York City headquarters of both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Thus far he says that both organizations have failed to respond to his overtures.

“It is outrageous that such blatant incitement stirs so little interest from human rights organizations. This is not just a speech, or a newspaper article, or a book – this is a highly anticipated media event. The hype in the Arabic media resembles the week before Iron Man 3 was released in the US. In only the past week, Al Jazeera has written three different articles about Khaybar.”

Cooper similarly criticized both organizations for not vocally condemning the show.

“We can come with the ‘J’accuse’ for two reasons. If they would say something it might have some impact in our own society, and secondly it would send a signal to civil societies in the Arab countries.”

Neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International had responded to detailed requests from The Algemeiner for comment as of this writing.

Ramadan is starting. According to this Arab movie site, Khaybar will start airing on July 15 - the night of Tisha B'Av, the saddest day of the Jewish year that commemorates many tragedies.

Read More

Why are human rights organizations silent about Arab and Muslim anti-semitism?

In 2003, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a joint statement on antisemitism:

Recognizing anti-Semitism as a serious human rights violation, we also recognize our own responsibility to take on this issue as part of our work. It should not be left to Jewish groups alone to highlight this issue and to appeal to the international community to address it. We are firmly committed to joining their ongoing efforts and to helping to bring problems of anti-Semitism into the overall human rights discourse.

Now, in 2013, if you look through the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International websites, it is difficult indeed to find any condemnations of Arab or Muslim antisemitism. While they condemn anti-semitism in Western countries, I cannot find a single mention of the phrases "Arab anti-semitism" or "Muslim anti-semitism" on either of their sites. Their typical mentions of antisemitism are usually together with Islamophobia.

Given the daily antisemitic incitement in the Arab and Muslim worlds, this is yet another indication that "human rights" organizations have a significant blind spot and are anxious to judge Arabs and Muslims by quite different standards than they judge Westerners.

In the past two days I posted crazed Jew-hating diatribes shown on Lebanese TV, in a popular Egyptian newspaper. Also recently we saw two accusations of the medieval blood libel in Egypt, a newspaper series insulting Judaism in Jordan, as well as examples of antisemitism in the Iraq media, Saudi Arabia newspaper, a Palestinian Arab "human rights group"  and "peace activist," and pan-Arab media, and many more.

It is endemic. But worse than that, the hatred is mass produced.

In 2001, a hugely popular 30-part Ramadan TV series aired in the Arab world based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was rerun in Egypt this year.

Iran released an antisemitic movie last year.

Scene during filming of upcoming Khaybar series

A purely anti-semitic TV series ("Khaybar") is being filmed now in Egypt and Morocco to be shown in Arabic TV will be used to incite hundreds of millions of people against Jews during Ramadan next year to the Arab world. The filming of the series gets regular coverage in Arab media, and they make clear that it is meant to demonize Jews. The director doesn't even attempt to hide the purpose of the film.

Naturally, "human rights" organizations are silent about that as well.

So where are the condemnations from the mainstream defenders of human rights who have said that antisemitism is a serious human rights violation?  Or is it simply too touchy a subject for them?

Simply put, human rights organizations do not insist that Arabs and Muslims adhere to the same standards that the rest of the world must.

I think there is another reason why this issue is roundly ignored by the mainstream human rights organizations. They want to believe that if only Israel would offer more concessions, then peace is possible. They want to frame the Arab-Israeli conflict in terms of human rights and international law and fairness and other Western constructs. The Arabs happily take advantage of this blind spot and speak only in those terms to Westerners as well, so the cycle of self-deception is complete.

Publicizing the rampant Jew-hatred in the Arab and Muslim worlds, however, will show that the hate transcends any other claims.

The Arab goal isn't human rights. They want to destroy the Jewish state and have Jews revert to the second-class status (at best) that they held in the Middle East for the past 1400 years. The idea that Jews aren't meekly submissive to their more numerous cousins is what causes this pure hate, not land disputes or "settlements."

Once this realization sinks in, the Western liberal mind would despair. Peace, it would appear, isn't possible in such a toxic environment. But since peace is imperative, the thinking goes, all evidence to the contrary must be downplayed. Pretend it is a political problem with a political solution, and don't let anything get in the  way.

The irony is that soft-pedaling Arab and Muslim antisemitism does no one any favors.

HRW, Amnesty, Oxfam and all the other human rights organizations can help the cause of peace immensely by shining light on this oldest hatred. Publicizing the issue is necessary  for ridding the Muslim world of their hate - or at least opening up a debate about it, a debate that is all but silent. (I have rarely seen a talkback in Arabic condemning an article that denies the Holocaust or accuses Jews of drinking gentile blood on Passover.)

Peace is literally unthinkable when the Jewish people are viewed as evil incarnate. Human rights organizations have clout. Shining light on this problem is essential, and it is not an obstacle to peace - it is a prerequisite.

Right now, the human rights organizations have a chance to prove that they mean what they say. The Khaybar TV series is coming, and it is pure incitement against Jews. Denouncing this as a human rights issue - which it is, according to Amnesty's and HRW's own words - can show that these organizations are serious about their own stated purposes.

UPDATE: Sign the petition!

Read More

HRW can't wait to publish hit pieces on Israel

From The Volokh Conspiracy:

Human Rights Watch has just released a report on Israel’s recent “Pillar of Defense” operation to suppress rocket fire from Gaza. The report concludes that 18 airstrikes violated international law by not being properly targeted. I do not know if 18 is a little or a lot for an operation of this scale, as there an no good comparative data (though the report is released as Afghanistan says yet another NATO airstrike hit a house with innocent women and children inside.)

The report, by its description of its methods, appears to be a hit piece. Here is what the report said about the group’s investigative method (emphasis added):

Human Rights Watch sent detailed information about the cases to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on January 14, 2013, requesting further information. At a meeting on January 24 and in subsequent phone conversations, the military spokesperson’s office told Human Rights Watch that the military chief of staff had ordered a general (aluf) to conduct an “operational debriefing” (tahkir mivtza’i) concerning “dozens” of Israeli attacks during the conflict, including the cases Human Rights Watch investigated, which would be completed by late February.

Because previous Israeli “operational debriefings” involving attacks were not conducted by trained military police investigators or dedicated to investigating alleged laws-of-war violations, Human Rights Watch has decided to publish its findings rather than wait for their results.

In other words, HRW received high-level and consistent cooperation. A meeting between HRW and the IDF took place on Jan 24 (just 10 days after HRW asked for further information), and were told that the IDF would have a more detailed response by late February after its own investigations were over. One month is not a long time to wait, certainly not covering an incident that occurred months ago.

It is completely baffling why HRW would rush to publish their report a mere two weeks before they could hear in full Israel’s response to their allegations. Furthermore, HRW’s explanation why they chose not to wait lacks any coherence. What is so special about designated military police as opposed to other investigators? And even if the IDF investigations were not conducted by trained military police, it is unquestionable that the IDF investigators would have access to sources HRW does not. One would expect that an organization whose influence is completely based on their reputation for objectivity and thoroughness would wish to have all the facts before rushing to publish.

Well-meaning observers are often puzzled why Israel sometimes does not cooperate with the multitudinous foreign investigations into its military operations. The minimal lack of procedural fairness investigations such as HRW’s is surely one reason for their reluctance.

NGO Monitor went into more detail:

HRW possesses neither the military expertise nor the appropriate fact-finding methodology to make these assessments and conduct proper investigations. Such judgments require knowledge of the military intelligence possessed by Israeli commanders at the time of the strikes, and information on intent of the officers. In contrast, HRW’s “evidence” consists solely of its inability to identify “indication[s] of a legitimate military target at the site at the time of the attack” and Israel’s refusal to explain its operational decisions to the NGO.

HRW’s press release is its seventh document relating to the November 2012 fighting in Gaza and Southern Israel. The disproportionate obsession and political agenda are further seen by HRW’s decision to conduct “field investigations” on that particular conflict, at a time when the UN estimated that over 10,000 people were killed in the Syrian civil war in the month of January 2013 alone.

HRW’s statement also denounced Israeli investigations, claiming that they “were not conducted by trained military police investigators or dedicated to investigating alleged laws-of-war violations.” Therefore, HRW did not wait for a response from the IDF, dealing with HRW’s cases and other attacks, which is anticipated “by late February.”

In fact, Israeli investigations meet international standards, as noted by Judge Mary McGowan Davis (empanelled by the Human Rights Council to lead the follow-up committee to the Goldstone Report), Judge Richard Goldstone, and the Turkel Committee. The real reason HRW does not want to wait for the IDF report is because it will demonstrate that HRW’s claims are baseless, as happened with Israeli responses to the 2009 Gaza conflict and the 2006 Lebanon War.

I visited NGO Monitor in Jerusalem on Thursday, and asked them about the supposed expertise of the "field investigators" HRW sends into Gaza. They are not completely transparent on who writes and contributes to many of their reports, but apparently they rely on people who live in Gaza to fill out much of the information in these reports - and they, in turn, rely on biased sources like PCHR and the Gaza Health Ministry to get the "facts" about particular incidents to them.

One of their Gaza researchers, Fares Akram, also has written for the New York Times - even about HRW itself, without disclosing his affiliation in the article!

This incestuous relationship between native Gazan "investigators," news organization stringers and reporters, and biased "human rights" organizations and NGOs is sorely unreported.

One other fact that NGO Monitor noted to me that is terrifically important: HRW does not have a published methodology on how they conduct these "field investigations." Without a rigorous and known methodology, bias isn't only possible - it is inevitable. Facts that conform to the "researcher"'s preconceived notions will naturally get highlighted and anything that contradicts it will be silently ignored. This is natural, after all, the news media do this all the time. But an organization like HRW must adhere to the higher standard it demands from others. Its standards must be far greater than that of journalists. In this case, there was no "deadline" that forced HRW to release this report before waiting for the official investigation by Israel. They simply decided to ignore any response before the fact.

HRW claims that Israel's investigations do not reach some arbitrary level of professionalism and objectivity that they made up. Yet if HRW would investigate itself with the same standards, it would come out far, far worse. Its bias has been exposed over and over again, here as well as elsewhere. HRW never admits it was wrong,  and when caught doing something unethical itself.

This is not the way an organization dedicated to the truth should act. But  it is exactly how a biased organization with an agenda would act.

Read More

HRW gives benefit of doubt to terrorists, but accuses Israel without proof

The latest HRW report condemning Israel reveals, within its own text, how biased the organization is towards Israel and how "fair" it is with terror groups.

First, look how they characterize Israel's actions in the first paragraph:

Four Israeli attacks on journalists and media facilities in Gaza during the November 2012 fighting violated the laws of war by targeting civilians and civilian objects that were making no apparent contribution to Palestinian military operations.

There is no caveat. HRW is stating, as a fact, that Israel targeted civilians, without any knowledge of what Israel was actually targeting.

HRW's reading of international law is flawed - read this invaluable NGO Monitor article that explains exactly why - and its "evidence" is laughable.

The two men’s families, interviewed separately, said the men were neither participating in the fighting nor members of any armed group. Human Rights Watch found no evidence, including during visits to the men’s homes, to contradict that claim. Hamas’s armed wing, al-Qassam Brigades, has not put either man on its official list of killed fighters– an unlikely omission if the men had been playing a military role.

HRW's "investigation" is talking to families of suspected terrorists, seeing if there is any "evidence" in their homes (what are they looking for, rockets?) and saying that Hamas hasn't put them in their list of "martyrs." This last point should note that Hamas has been adding "martyrs" to their list as recently as this week, and those killed in Cast Lead were often posted many months after the fighting.

But this is enough for HRW to make definitive statements that Israel targeted civilians.

Now, look at how HRW reports this other incident where Israel bombed a media building:

A second and separate attack on the third floor of the Shoruq Building on the afternoon of November 19 appeared to target specific Palestinian militants, who, if present, would have been unlawfully placing the building’s civilian occupants at risk, Human Rights Watch said. The IDF apparently contacted at least one international journalist in the building to warn them to evacuate.

All of a sudden, when there is evidence of Islamic Jihad violating the laws of armed conflict, HRW is hedging. "Appeared," "would be," "if present," "apparently" - all phrases that it doesn't use in reference to Israeli actions.

Later on, we see that HRW knows very well that Islamic Jihad terrorists were there:

A second attack that afternoon on the building’s third floor appears to have been on a military target, killing one member of Islamic Jihad’s armed wing, Ramez Hareb. If Palestinians involved in military operations were meeting in the Shoruq Tower, as the IDF claimed, they were placing civilians at unnecessary risk in violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said.

Now, the IDF gave out a list of the people it was targeting on that floor of that building, including Hareb:

• Baha Abu al-Ata: Commander of Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Gaza City Brigade; involved in planning attacks against Israel, arms manufacturing and long-range rocket launching capabilities
• Tissir Mahmoud Mahmed Jabari: Senior Islamic Jihad operative; responsible for training within the organization and approving terrorist attacks against Israel
• Halil Batini: Senior Islamic Jihad operative; a key figure in planning the group’s long-range rocket launching operations; responsible for internal security
• Ramez Harab: Responsible for propaganda in Islamic Jihad’s Gaza City Brigade; an aide to Tissir Jabari; the former head of the Sheikh Rajuan Division

Obviously, the IDF had good intelligence on who was in that building - yet HRW doesn't even lift a finger to investigate whether Islamic Jihad was performing a war crime!

This also proves that the IDF was obviously not targeting people indiscriminately, and that it had specific military targets in mind. HRW's blanket statement that they were not military targets shows that it would not believe anything the IDF says, no matter what, unless they can twist it into making it look guilty.

HRW - in its own words, in its own report - consistently gives the benefit of the doubt to Islamic Jihad and Hamas terror groups, but gives no such slack to the IDF which is accuses, without any reservation, of war crimes.

If that isn't bias, then I don't know what is.

Read More

HRW contradicts itself on ICC and Israel

From UN Watch:

Minutes after the U.N. voted on Nov. 29 to call “Palestine” a state, the New York-based group Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a press release urging the Palestinians to use their new status to pursue Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Yet few noticed that HRW’s lobbying contradicted its own promises that this scenario would never happen.

In 2001, when Americans were debating whether or not to support the ICC, Human Rights Watch published “Myths and Facts About the International Criminal Court.”

As part of its campaign to get the U.S. to ratify the Rome Statute and join the ICC, Human Rights Watch affirmed that the new court would never be used “to pursue politically motivated cases against Israel.” This concern was nothing but a “myth,” insisted HRW.

This was because “Future actions on Israeli or Palestinian territory will be covered only if the ICC treaty is ratified by Israel or by a broadly recognized Palestinian state.” And as HRW explained, in aWashington Post op-ed, “That will not happen until after a peace agreement, in which case the likelihood of Israeli military action against Palestinians greatly diminishes.”

Fast forward several years. Suddenly, HRW is lobbying for the Palestinian bid to become a U.N. state and an ICC member before a peace agreement — and indeed while the Palestinians have refused to even sit at the negotiating table with Israel.

What happened to HRW’s “that will not happen”promise?

The truth is that over the past several years, HRW has actively lobbied to make happen everything that it assured Americans would never happen.

...While HRW was sometimes cagey on expressing outright support for the formal ICC request submitted by the PA, there was no mistaking where they stood: “Human Rights Watch called on the ICC prosecutor to make a prompt legal determination on the Palestinian National Authority request, consistent with the ICC’s mandate to end impunity.” The latter phrase could only mean HRW wanted the ICC to decide in the affirmative.

Similarly, in a September 2010 speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council, HRW called on the 47-nation body to “urge the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to determine in a prompt manner whether he believes the court has jurisdiction over the Gaza conflict. Such a determination will clarify the avenues of international justice available.”

Again, HRW made it clear how they wanted the jurisdiction question to be decided: “The parties... have thus far not shown a willingness to conduct investigations up to international standards, so international prosecutions may be required.” Peace talks, said HRW, “in no way lessen the need for accountability. On the contrary, justice [i.e., ICC prosecution] for serious violations should be part of the discussion.”

...

The greatest supporter of the Goldstone Report’s call for ICC prosecutions, apart from HRW, was the Hamas terrorist organization. ...

By actively lobbying for Palestinian statehood prior to a peace agreement, and by urging Palestinians to pursue Israel in the ICC, Human Rights Watch promotes the Hamas agenda and the politicization of international law.

More than that, HRW breaks its word, and undermines the credibility of its organization. 

Read the whole thing.

Maybe HRW needs a new logo.

(h/t Arsen Ostrovsky)

Read More

HRW's anti-Israel position illustrated by a single tweet

Yesterday, Human Rights Watch head Ken Roth tweeted:

 

Kenneth RothVerified‏@KenRoth

The people who reflexively condemn @HRWevery time we criticize #Israel are finding it hard to dismiss our #Syria work.http://trib.al/PrI96b 

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite

The link is to an article in the Jewish Daily Forward, praising HRW's work in Syria.

I will accept that HRW is doing good work in Syria. The problem is that, as this tweet indicates, HRW cannot distinguish between the morality of a brutal regime murdering tens of thousands of its citizens and Jews building houses in their historic capital.

In fact, the Forward article indicates that even HRW is afraid that its very recent work in Syria is overshadowing its anti-Israel work:

Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division, says that the focus on Syria has meant an accompanying relative shift away from Israel and Palestinian territories.

“Since Israel was involved in a war in Lebanon and a war in Gaza, of course it got a lot of attention,” Whitson said. As the group’s area manager, Whitson says, she now struggles to keep the work that the organization continues to do outside Syria from getting buried. Before the uprising, Syria “was such a moribund place, we couldn’t generate news…. The reality is, for us to report we needed to be documenting active measures of repression or active measures of abuse.”

A hundred killed every single day in Syria, and Sarah Leah Whitson is complaining that she cannot gain traction on her usual anti-Israel focus! (And HRW managed to focus on Israel plenty of times besides the wars in Lebanon and Gaza.)

In other words, for them to report on Syria before rebels managed to start making territorial gains was really hard, but for them to report on Arabs claiming Israeli abuse was really, really easy. So they decided that Israel was the major human rights abuser in the Middle East, and Syria  - while bad - is problematic because mass murders there are overshadowing their specialty.

The article also somewhat contradicts Whitson's claim that it was nearly impossible to report abuses from Syria before the current round of mass murders:

“We’ve been working on Syria for so long; I’d been doing it for six years when the uprising started,” said Nadim Houry, HRW’s Beirut-based deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division. “We already had contacts with quite a few activists and had been able to establish trust and assess accountability over a few years.”

So there you have it. A single tweet shows that HRW is not only equating Israeli actions with Syrian human rights abuses, not only that it feels it should be congratulated for doing what it is supposed to be doing, but that it feels guilty that it is emphasizing Syria so much recently.

I never saw a quote from an HRW officlal complaining that Israel is taking up so many of HRW's resources that they cannot focus properly on Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Which means that even today, HRW's  main focus is Israel, and Syria's murderous regime is a distraction that must be solved so it can get back to its major agenda of demonizing the Jewish state.

Read More

"Human rights orgs" double-down on Tamimi

I noted last week that the EU and Amnesty International regard Bassem Tamimi as a "prisoner of conscience" and a "human rights defender" even though he was convicted of encouraging kids to throw stones at Israeli soldiers.

I mentioned that an Amnesty official visited the Tamimi family and reported, without a shred of verification, that the family's "curtains [are] burned from tear gas shot by the Israeli army into the house."

I emailed the IDF, asking if IDF allows firing tear gas into houses. The answer I received was "IDF regulations do not allow for the firing of tear gas into a house. Tear gas is used only for riot dispersal."

A reader sent my blog comments to both the EU and Amnesty's office in Amsterdam.

Amnesty's reply is priceless, as it defends itself without any evidence besides its own sterling record:

Dear Mr. XXXX.

Amnesty International regards mister Bassam Tamimi as a prisoner of conscience, who is imprisoned solely because of his role in organizing peaceful protests against the encroachement on Palestinian lands by Israeli colonists.

Therefore, in our view, he should be released immediately and unconditionally.

The underpinning of our work is solid and reliable information.

We attach much value to the checking and double-checking of all information we receive.

Hence, Amnesty reaches the above conclusions after extensive investigation of this case.

Amnesty’s strenghth is reliability.

Amnesty only acts after very thorough investigation.

At Amnesty's headquarter in London, information on human rights abuses from around the world is collected and analyzed.

Amnesty also sends research teams to investigate the human rights situation on location. During such missions Amnesty talks to victims, lawyers, local human rights activists, the government and is present at court cases.

The research is done by a team of experts, supported by specialists in different areas like international justice, media and technology.

Only when our researchers are convinced about a case will Amnesty take action. This approach guarantees that our organisation is always capable of exposing human rights abuses without error.

Through this methodology our organisation is always capable of exposing human rights abuses in a reliable way.

With kind regards,


Wim Roelofsen,
Publieksvoorlichting

Twelve paragraphs of "proof by assertion." The vignette on the Amnesty site proves every one of these assertions wrong, as Amnesty did not follow up about the "tear gas" claim and reports it as fact.

As far as Tamimi goes, the EU did not respond to my reader's query. But HRW has now added itself to the gang of people who claim, falsely, that the conviction of Tamimi was based on the testimony of a child:

An Israeli military court’s conviction on May 20, 2012, of a Palestinian activist, Bassem Tamimi, of leading illegal demonstrations violates his right to freedom of assembly, while its conviction of him on a second charge of urging children to throw stones on the basis of a child’s coercively-obtained statement raises serious concerns about the fairness of his trial, Human Rights Watch said today. The court sentenced Tamimi on May 29 to 13 months in prison, which he has already served, as well as a 17-month suspended sentence.

“The Israeli military authorities seem to have known it would be hard to justify convicting an activist for only leading peaceful protests, so they apparently used oppressive methods to produce evidence that he also encouraged children to throw stones,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

[Tamimi] was further convicted of soliciting children and youths to throw stones on the basis of evidence that, the court said, rested to a decisive degree on a statement obtained by police interrogators from a 15-year-old Palestinian boy whom soldiers had arrested at gunpoint late at night. They questioned the boy for more than four hours the following morning, after he had not slept, without letting him have a parent or lawyer present. In that statement, the boy said that Tamimi had encouraged youths to throw stones, but in court the boy retracted his statement and said the police had instructed him to incriminate Tamimi.

As I noted last week, the judge specifically ignored most the testimony of a minor and a young adult because she did not believe their testimony and because of inconsistencies - yet HRW is saying that the conviction was based primarily on this evidence.

Reading further, Amnesty admits that the judge noted that the 14-year old's testimony (of a relative of Tamimi's) was not coerced based on the fact that he was laughing during the interrogation and that police asked him if he wanted to sleep and he declined. Amnesty also admits that the judge noted there was corroborating evidence that Tamimi was directing children to throw stones, as he was gesturing from a roof towards soldiers while on a cell phone. So even though the court proceedings were completely transparent, including the videotaping of the interrogations and the reasoning behind the conviction, Amnesty and the EU are flatly stating that the judge is acting politically and not according to legal standards.

HRW also admits that there is regularly stone throwing at these weekly demonstrations. Yet Tamimi is a "peace activist."

Read More

HRW report on discrimination against Roma, Jews in Bosnia

From Human Rights Watch:

Roma, Jews, and other national minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina remain excluded from participation in national politics 20 years after war began, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Bosnia needs to remove ethnic discrimination against national minorities from its constitution, laws, and public institutions, Human Rights Watch said.

The 62-page report, “Second Class Citizens: Discrimination Against Roma, Jews, and Other National Minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” highlights discrimination against Roma, Jews, and other national minorities in politics and government. Much of this discrimination stems from Bosnia’s 1995 Constitution, which mandates a system of government based on ethnicity and excludes these groups from high political office. The report also shows the wider impact of discrimination on the daily lives of Roma in accessing housing, education, healthcare, and employment.

HRW definitely uncovers and highlights official discrimination against Bosnia-Herzegovina's minorities.

Their emphasis on Jews in the report is interesting.

There are only 500 Jews in Bosnia now, as opposed to (probably) tens of thousands of Roma and hundreds of thousands of members of other ethnic groups who suffer discrimination. The report even mentions that Jews manage to obtain high-level civil service jobs, although they are hampered from running for political office. So why is HRW emphasizing the comparatively few Jews?

There are two possible explanations.

One is that the Jewish community, although tiny, is well organized so it is easier to get perspective on minority rights by speaking to them. In fact, Jewish community leader Jakob Finci brought a lawsuit complaining about the inability of minorities to run for president. The Jews' cohesion gives them greater visibility.

But I can't help but think that the major reason that Jews are in the title of the report as well as disproportionately featured within was that HRW wanted to get more publicity, and Jews are news. The report barely mentions Albanians and Macedonians, who outnumber Jews by a factor of forty in the country.

This is not to say that the report is not a good exposé on the very real state-mandated discrimination in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its just that in this case their highlighting of Jews as victims seems a little misplaced, and possibly political.

Read More

HRW director finds fault with Israel for willingness to help Arabs

Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, just proved today that his hatred of Israel trumps his interest in human rights.

Ha'aretz reported:

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said Tuesday that Israel is preparing to absorb Alawite refugees once Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime collapses, which he expects to happen in the coming months.

"Assad is not the same type as [Former Libyan leader Muammar] Gahdafi, who fights until the last bullet down in the sewer. The day that the Syrian regime will fall, it will issue a blow to the Alawites, and we are preparing to absorb those refugees."

At a time that Syrians are being slaughtered by the thousands, Israel is making contingency plans to help an Arab minority who would be in grave danger. This is a moral imperative - and one that not one Arab country has yet publicly accepted.

Does Ken Roth praise Israel? Does he slam Arabs for not doing the same?

Of course not! He's the head of Human Rights Watch, and he knows who to blame for everything!

That's right - this arbiter of morality, the man in the forefront of the human rights movement, chooses to insult the only country that is willing to save people's lives.

It is worth mentioning that Israel, through the years, has absorbed many Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants - well over 100,000 of them. And it offered, a number of times, to accept many more if the Arabs would conclude a peace agreement with Israel. And that the Palestinians are discriminated against, by law, in every Arab country.

But from the perspective of the leader of Human Rights Watch, it is Israel and only Israel that must be insulted and berated, even when it is trying to save lives.

The reason that Human Rights Watch has turned into a parody of human rights is in no small part due to the sickening bias that Ken Roth and his people have against Israel.

Read More

"Human Rights" Watch

Human Rights Watch does it again:

Yea... let's open the borders now we released some murderers! Of course no word of HRW demanding the same from Egypt. Of course no word on the prisoners with blood on their hands, who got released in this swap. No word on how Shalit came out of prison - weak and pale, while his "counter-prisoners" were strong and of good health. No word on Shalits words for the wish of peace and no word for released Hamas prisoners who want to continue rather today than tomorrow with their fight.

In which parallel universe is HRW living? Seriously.

Read More

HRW notices Hamas is not exactly acting democratically

Two statements about Hamas by HRW! It's a miracle!

A Palestinian human rights official is urging the leadership in Gaza to reverse a decision blocking eight students from traveling to the United States for university.

Rawyeh Ash-Shawwa, member of the legislative council and head of the Independent Commission for Human Rights, ... found it dumbfounding that Palestinians have battled Israel for permission to leave Gaza but remain stuck due to Hamas.

The 16-year-old students had been granted Amideast scholarships to study in the US. They will lose their scholarships if the decision is not reversed. The students have asked not to be named.

On Monday, Human Rights Watch urged Hamas to overturn the decision.

“Hamas should be encouraging young people to seek educational opportunities, not arbitrarily blocking them from traveling abroad to study,” said Joe Stork, Human Rights Watch's deputy Mideast director.

And:

Authorities in Gaza should halt interrogations, detentions, and harassment apparently aimed at intimidating civil society activists, Human Rights Watch said Monday.

"Hamas should respect their rights to freedom of expression and assembly," the group said in a report noting the arrest of youth activist Abu Yazan, who campaigned for Palestinian unity in March.

“If Hamas expects to be treated as a responsible governing authority, it should stop persecuting peaceful critics in Gaza,” said Joe Stork, deputy Mideast director at the New York-based rights group.

Of course, unlike when they want to criticize Israel, HRW waited a week or two after these stories were originally reported before making any statements.

Read More

HRW's latest lies: WB Arabs live in "shanties", Jews in "spacious villas"

In the Huffington Post, the executive director of the Middle East and North African Division for Human Rights Watch, Sarah Leah Whitson, describes the West Bank this way:

And security concerns do not justify systematically separating Palestinians from Jews, with shanties and dirt roads provided for the one, and spacious villas with swimming pools and paved highways provided for the other.

Here is a photo I took of one of those "shanties". Click to see it in all its horror:

And here's a photo of those spacious villas:

The Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria that I visited were clean, well-planned and overwhelmingly suburban in nature. I saw nothing that could be remotely described as ostentatious. Houses were attractive but uniform in design.

From the highway, many of the Arab towns showed literal mansions, orders of magnitude larger than any Jewish house in the area. And many more were under construction.



Similarly, Whitson is pushing the similar slander that Palestinian Arabs are not allowed on "Jewish" roads, a complete lie that Yisrael Medad documented last week as such:

More photos of Palestinian Arab mansions are at Shiloh Musings.

(h/t Anne)

Read More

HRW appoints PFLP terrorist as an advisor. Really.

From The Daily Beast:

A Palestinian whom Israel’s Supreme Court has described as a “Jekyll and Hyde” of international terrorism has been appointed by Human Rights Watch (HRW) to its advisory board that oversees the sensitive reporting on Arab-Israeli affairs.

The man at the center of the dispute, Shawan Jabarin, runs the human rights organization Al Haq in Ramallah on the occupied West Bank. In 1985 he belonged to a Birzeit University student group associated with the PFLP, indicted as a terror group, by 30 countries including the U.S., the European Union, and Canada. He was convicted of recruiting members for terrorist training outside Israel and served nine months of a 24-month jail sentence.

After he had served his time in jail, Jabarin was engaged as a field worker by Al Haq. He rose to become Director General in 2006 and has been nominated for several international awards but Israel in 1999 banned him from international travel. Jordan, also, has refused him entry on grounds of security. On Al Haq website Jabarin said he had lost track of the number of times he’d been arrested and detained. He estimated that he’d spent a cumulative eight years in administrative detention and claimed to have been beaten on numerous occasions.

In its 2007 judgment, the Supreme Court found that alongside activity in Al Haq, Jabarin was also a senior figure in the Popular Front terrorist organization: “This petitioner is apparently active as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In part of his activities, he is the director of a human rights organization, and in another part he is an activist in a terrorist organization which does not shy away from acts of murder and attempted murder which have nothing to do with rights, and on the contrary deny the most basic of all human rights, the most fundamental of fundamental right, without which there are no other rights—the right to life.”

Jabarin petitioned the court again in 2008. The court said it could understand the frustration of Jabarin’s lawyers in not being able to see the intelligence against him, but explained that the judges’ own examination of the classified material had led them to two conclusions: “First, that it is reliable information according to which the petitioner is among the senior activists of the Popular Front terrorist organization; second, the divulging of this material to the petitioner involves the exposure of important sources of information, and thus certain harm to national security.”

The Court examined the case a third time in March 2009. It reported that it had twice tried to find “a creative solution” that gave Jabarin some limited freedom of movement but concluded: “We found that the material pointing to the petitioner’s involvement in the activity of terrorist entities is concrete and reliable material. We also found that additional negative material concerning the petitioner has been added even after his previous petition was rejected.”
The judgment emphasized that the ban was not “punishment” for forbidden activity but “due to relevant security considerations.”

Calls over several days to [HRW's Sarah Leah] Whiston were not returned. In a telephone conversation, [HRW's Ken] Roth at first said it was “not true” that Jabarin had been a member of PFLP, then added: “And if he had been, it’s ancient history.” He would not discuss the Supreme Court judgments. In an email, Roth defended the appointment saying Jabarin had had no association with the PFLP or any other political organization since joining the staff of Al Haq in 1987.

In fact, Jabarin was arrested by Israel in 1994 for heading the PFLP - while he was already working for Al Haq.

And in 2003, Israel allowed Jabarin to travel to Jordan - and Jordan refused to let him in because of his terror record.

Al Haq is hardly an unbiased "human rights" organization either. It engages in "lawfare" against Israel. One of the papers on its website justifies terrorism as legal:

[R]esistance against occupation and its arbitrary practices is legitimate under international law, and these acts are considered a part of the Palestinian people‘s resistance and struggle against occupation in order to achieve their right to liberation and independence, the occupation forces call it “terrorism”...

So not only is HRW trying to appoint a terrorist who has been shown to be a credible current threat by Israel's Supreme Court, but they are using his service to a "human rights" organization that supports terror as their main proof that he is not a terrorist!

No wonder that HRW's founder, Robert Bernstein, said, "I am of course shocked but even more saddened that an organization dedicated to the rule of law seems to be deliberately undermining it."

(h/t Alex and Zach)

Read More