Why HRW is racist: it condemns Sharon in death, ignores Phalangists, supports Dieudonné

Human Rights Watch remains as disgusting as ever.

As Ariel Sharon died after his long illness, HRW is very sad. Not about his death, of course:

Ariel Sharon died without facing justice for his role in the massacres of hundreds and perhaps thousands of civilians by Lebanese militias in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982. The killings constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Sharon also escaped accountability for other alleged abuses, such as his role expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, prosecutable as a war crime. Sharon ordered the removal of all Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip and from four West Bank settlements in 2005, but the overall number of settlers in occupied territory increased significantly during his term as prime minister.

“It’s a shame that Sharon has gone to his grave without facing justice for his role in Sabra and Shatilla and other abuses,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “His passing is another grim reminder that years of virtual impunity for rights abuses have done nothing to bring Israeli-Palestinian peace any closer.”

As far as I can tell, HRW has never written an article like this about the death of any other person. Not Osama bin Laden, not Moammar Qaddafi, not Saddam Hussein. Only Ariel Sharon gets treated this way.

Now, if you do a search through HRW's archives of the word "Phalangist" (or "Keta'eb," which is the current name of that group in Lebanon, still an active political party) you will not find a single condemnation of their massacres in Sabra and Shalita. Every single time they are mentioned it is in context of - Ariel Sharon.

To HRW, the people who actually slaughter human beings and mutilate pregnant women are blameless. They are not worthy of any calls to investigation, there is no reason to seek justice from them.

How can this be? How can Human Rights Watch ignore the perpetrators of the crime and give the lion's share of responsibility to someone who, while he should have anticipated and stopped the crime, was not either its planner nor executor?

The answer is very simple, and it betrays the racism of Human Rights Watch and many other such groups, media and politicians:

Middle Easterners are expected to be savages. Arabs and Maronite Christians, in HRW's world, are animals. They have no free will - their actions are disgusting but inevitable, a consequence of their subhuman natures.

Jews, on the other hand, must act like human beings. They must prevent two sets of animals under their control from killing each other.  Indeed, this is how human beings should act, and Sharon was correctly slammed by Israeli commissions for his not being proactive in stopping what was almost inevitable.

Human Rights Watch, however, only blames Sharon. The esteemed organization cannot be bothered to condemn Maronites or Arabs for acting like this - that is their nature. This is pure racism.

Sabra and Shatila would not exist on the website of Human Rights Watch if it wasn't for Ariel Sharon. In fact, Lebanon saw much worse massacres in recent decades- even against Palestinian civilians - and HRW has not a word to say about those massacres. Only if a Jew can be blamed is it worth being brought up.

Another angle: Sharon forcibly expelled thousands of people from their homes in Gaza and the West Bank. This would seem to be against the Geneva Conventions. The ICRC interprets international law this way: "Individual or mass forcible transfers...are prohibited, regardless of their motive." But they were Jews, so HRW has nothing bad to say about that. Jews in the territories are the only group of people in the world that HRW insists should be forcibly removed from their homes. There is a double standard clear to all: international law must be twisted to ensure that Jews, the indigenous people of ancient Israel and Judah, are always violators of law while Arabs who invaded or moved in millenia later are nearly blameless in their actions.

To put the icing on the HRW anti-semitism cake, they also wrote this about antisemitic French "comedian" Dieudonné:

France made the wrong decision when it banned controversial comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, known for appallingly and insultingly mocking the Holocaust, from performing a number of his stand-up shows.

The government’s representative in Nantes banned a show scheduled for Thursday, on grounds of threats to public order. On the day of the show, one of the city’s courts overturned the ban. But Minister of the Interior Manuel Valls, who has spoken out openly and strongly against Dieudonné, appealed to France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’Etat, which later in the day upheld the ban.

On Friday, another court upheld the ban on another show by Dieudonné that was to take place in Tours in the evening. Welcoming the ruling by the Conseil d’Etat, Valls said that “The Republic has won”.

Yet a country’s dedication to human rights and democratic values is measured in the way it treats those with whom it disagrees, and in this instance, France has failed that test. France should respect freedom of expression, including those opinions that shock, offend, or disturb – unless they amount to inciting violence. Any restrictions to this freedom must be necessary and proportionate, and banning Dieudonné shows is neither. If there are indeed threats to public order, authorities should deploy enough police officers to deter violence, not ban the show altogether.

Please, HRW, explain how making fun of the Holocaust and Jews is anything less than incitement. How does creating an environment where Jews being gassed and burned is a subject of mockery make it a safer country for Jews to live in? There is a reason that record numbers of French Jews moved to Israel this year, but, hey, HRW probably considers that a war crime as well.

And, of course, Arab media regularly has much more open incitement against Jews, as I have documented countless times. Yet to this day, HRW has never said a word against Arab antisemiticm and incitement to kill Jews.

HRW has a halo effect as being one of the most prestigious human rights organizations. And in some parts of the world, perhaps it does some good work. But its standards are twisted into a mockery of human rights when the subject or object of the reports happen to be Jews. The standard for Jews to tolerate hate against themselves is lower than that for anyone else; while the standard for Jews to act in a humane manner is much, much higher than that of their neighbors.

 It is hard to find this to be a coincidence.

Read More

Why aren't human rights groups defending Jews' rights to visit the Temple Mount?

According to Palestine Today, this morning a a mob of Muslims managed to start a disturbance in order to "expel" a group of about 30 Jews who were visiting the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site.

The Aqsa Heritage Foundation has photos of the "settlers" being "provocative."

As far as I can tell, not only do Jews have the right to visit and to pray on the Temple Mount, but if they wanted to build a synagogue there I cannot find anything in international law that wouldn't support them wholeheartedly.

The overriding consideration in international law is the right to be treated equally, and barring Jews from the Temple Mount is about as discriminatory as possible.

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

In addition, Article 20 seems to prohibit the insults and incitement that Muslims engage in towards Jews on the Temple Mount:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Moreover, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief is filled with articles that would prohibit banning Jews from the Temple Mount:

No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other beliefs.

For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

Discrimination between human beings on grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enunciated in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights, and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.

All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.

All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.

From these articles it appears that Israel is obligated to allow Jews to visit and pray there, and to protect them from those who want to take away their rights.

It is true that this same declaration says:

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

But this clause is referring to cases where the practitioners of the religion are the ones who are a danger to others, not when the others are so intolerant that they threaten violence. To invoke this paragraph to deny Jews' rights to the Temple Mount (which I suspect human rights organizations would do if pressed) would make the rest of that declaration a mockery.

Of course, we will never hear Human Rights Watch or Amnesty or the UN dare to defend the Jewish right to worship on the Temple Mount. Because Jews who want to do so are not considered to be worthy of protection by international law, apparently.

(I hope to expand this into a paper for ASHREI-ME.)

Read More

Egypt arrests student for atheism

From Al Ahram:

An Ismailiya misdemeanour court has ordered the detention of a Suez Canal University student for 15 days, pending investigations on accusations that he insulted religion, the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE) said.

Sherif Gaber was arrested on Sunday after his university administration filed a report against him saying he formed a Facebook group for atheists.

Article 98 of Egypt's penal code says anyone convicted of offending religion in any form can face up to six years in prison.

That's funny. I never heard of that law being enforced against any insults to Judaism, Christianity or any religion besides Islam.

Read More

Gays, Kurds not protected in Turkish hate-crimes draft bill

From Hurriyet Daily News:

A draft presented to the Cabinet concerning hate crimes does not include provisions for those targeted because of their sexual orientation or ethnic identity.

The draft, which designates “hate and prejudice” as an aggravation cause for crimes, was presented as one of the reforms that government vowed to implement as part of its “democracy package.”

However, hate and prejudice crimes are defined in the draft as “crimes committed based on someone’s or some group’s language, race, nationality, skin color, gender, disability, political views, philosophical beliefs or religion,” excluding those based on ethnicity and sexual orientation, different to many European countries.

With the exclusion of ethnicity as a characteristic that could be basis of a hate crime, assaults against ethnic minorities in Turkey that don’t have a nation recognized by the United Nations would be charged with a regular punishment. For example, if an Armenian person in Turkey is targeted for being an Armenian, the crime committed against them will be regarded as a hate crime and whatever the crime is, its penalty would be aggravated.

On the hand, the largest ethnic minority in Turkey, Kurds, is not included in the regulation, as it does not have a U.N.-recognized country.

Although gender is included, the same is true for gays and lesbians, as attacking a person based on their sexual orientation is not regarded as a hate or prejudice crime, according to the draft.

Sounds like EU material, no?

Read More

Introducing ASHREI - A new human rights organization

ASHREI-ME (Middle East) is a new organization/website I am creating to highlight human rights issues in the Middle East that get ignored by other human rights NGOs.

Started up with no money and no paid workers, ASHREI seeks to shine a light on:

• Palestinians who want citizenship in Arab countries
• Terror victims who don't want to see murderers freed
• Jews who want to freely visit and worship at their holiest spots
• Arab women and others who want to be protected from "family honor" crimes
• Peace-loving Arabs who are being bullied into silence
• Arabs and Jews who want to work together on common interests without fear
• Arab and Muslim antisemitism

​In addition, ASHREI exposes the bias of other human rights organizations who concentrate disproportionate effort and resources to demonize Israel while downplaying or ignoring HR issues in its neighbors.

Time permitting, I will be adding more material on these themes, both from here and from other researchers who have not found an outlet or an audience for their work.

I don't know where this will go or if it will gain any traction. But some topics covered here are too important to let them be forgotten as new posts replace the old ones. I hope to make ASHREI a repository and resource for solid, reliable information on these critical issues.

It is frustrating to see the entire concept of human rights get hijacked by organizations who can't distinguish between real human rights issues and their political viewpoints. Everyone deserves human rights. ASHREI seeks to help, in a small way, highlight the human rights of those who are ignored by the existing NGO community.

Browse ASHREI-ME today!

Read More

13,000 Gazans eagerly became Egyptian citizens in two years

You know how the Arab world (and their apologists) has been insisting for years that Palestinian Arabs have no desire to become citizens of any other country because they don't want to lose their "Palestinian" identity? (This includes, of course, becoming citizens of the "State of Palestine.")

The only problem is that every time a loophole opens that allows them to become citizens of Arab countries, they have jumped at the opportunity. It happened in Lebanon in the 1950s and again in the 1990s.

Now, an Egyptian law that allows children of Egyptian mothers to become Egyptian citizens has resulted in over 13,000 Gazans claiming and earning Egyptian citizenship in the last two years. Thousands more have applied for citizenship.

Anyone who claims to be "pro-Palestinian" who says that Palestinian Arabs must not be allowed to become citizens of Arab countries, if they so desire, is a hypocrite. Human rights advocates must demand that Palestinian Arabs be given the same rights that other Arabs have of applying for citizenship in any other Arab country, let alone their host countries that the vast majority were born in.

Read More

Abbas again tells Lebanese Palestinians to go to hell

Palestine Press Agency reports that Mahmoud Abbas, on a visit to Lebanon, reiterated that he insists Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon should remain stateless forever, or at least until Israel is destroyed:

The presence of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is temporary and subject to Lebanese law, and access to civil rights to live with dignity in Lebanon does not at all mean resettlement. We categorically reject the principle of resettlement.

Here, Abbas is repeating what he said in 2008:

We would not accept any settlements that would lead to a demographic change in Lebanon. This is totally unacceptable ... We won't accept a settlement that obliges Lebanon to naturalize even one Palestinian.

And again:

We assure our Lebanese brothers that the resettlement of refugees in their country is rejected. We will not accept it.

In 2009, he vehemently came out against the idea of Lebanon issuing passports to their Palestinian Arab "guests."

In 2005, however, Abbas had no problem with offering citizenship for Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon - and he was castigated for that by the self-appointed terrorist leaders in Lebanon.

The Lebanese Palestinians have consistently chosen to become citizens when they had a chance.

As I have previously written on this topic:

Generations have grown up in Lebanon, raised families, and died, but their supposed "leader" is more interested in them keeping their stateless status rather than giving them the simple choice of allowing them to be more integrated into the land of their birth.

Mahmoud Abbas, that supposedly moderate leader of the PA, the PLO and Fatah, who claims to represent millions of people of Palestinian Arab descent, has once again told his people to go screw themselves rather than give them the option of happiness as full citizens of other Arab lands. He arrogantly claims to know what is best for his people, and is dead-set against giving them the option of making their own decisions.

Because he knows that the majority them would not choose to put their families through the hell that they have gone through thanks to the decisions of Arab leaders over the past six decades.

Palestinian Arabs who choose to become citizens of Arab countries will, by and large, never choose to move to an eventual "Palestine." They will identify only peripherally as "Palestinian." They will lose their value as pawns to corrupt, arrogant "leaders" who pretend to know what is best for them, and whose power derives from their very misery.

Moreover, if Arab countries would give PalArabs full citizenship, a significant number of Palestinian Arabs in the territories - hundreds of thousands, if not over a million - would happily move to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Dubai. (Ironically, they would also have a positive influence on most of their host Arab countries, as they tend to be better educated and harder working, and Gulf countries import many workers from Indonesia and Africa, causing many problems that could be avoided if Palestinian Arab workers replaced them.)

The operative word here is "choice." Palestinian Arabs are not given the power to choose where to live, and Arab nations specifically deny them the ability to become citizens that they give all other Arabs.

Yet there are no "pro-Palestinian" organizations tha lobby on behalf of real Palestinian Arabs. They all repeat the lie that they can best help them by fighting Israel, militarily or politically. It is a myth, and one that is easily disproven - it has not helped them one bit in 63 years. "Human rights" organizations may mention some of these problems in isolation but they do not push for the simplest, fairest and cheapest solution to the problem of millions of stateless people.

Abbas, the one person who pretends to represent his people the best, tells his suffering would-be constituents that their six-decade old problem is "temporary."

This is a travesty of human rights.

The way to tell if someone is truly pro-Palestinian Arab or is simply using the Palestinian Arabs as pawns to help destroy Israel is to ask him one simple question:

Do you support giving all Palestinian Arabs the choice to become full citizens of any Arab country that they desire, according to the existing naturalization rules that they have for other Arabs?

This is the question that needs to be asked of every Arab leader, every Palestinian Arab leader, every NGO, every human rights organization. It should be hammered in during every interview. They must be forced to answer the question clearly and forcefully.

Unless they can answer that question in the affirmative, the inescapable conclusion is that most people who pretend to be "pro-Palestinian" are nothing more than liars and hypocrites who support discrimination against the very people they claim they want to help.

Read More