BDS IN THE PEWS
|Analyzing Human Rights Watch’s Defensive Response to Robert Bernstein|
HRW’s founder’s critical op-ed in the NY Times led to a defensive campaign by HRW officials and supporters. These misleading responses use identical language and format. HRW officials did not address Bernstein’s most serious claims: HRW’s role in “turn[ing] Israel into a pariah state” and its loss of “critical perspective” on Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Analysis demonstrates that, contrary to the NGO’s claims, HRW does disproportionately focus on Israel, including 30% of the Middle East division’s reporting in 2009; and its “research” is flawed and error-filled.
Goldstone’s NGO partner: The Arab Thought Forum – E.U. funding to Promote Demonization
Goldstone is the chair of the Executive Committee of the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation. Its Middle East Project to “establish a ‘shared history’” is being conducted in partnership with the Arab Thought Forum (ATF). There is no longer an Israeli NGO partner. ATF employs terms such as “Palestinian Holocaust,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” and “collective punishment,” while promoting the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign.
Amnesty’s water report: “Israel-apartheid” allegations
Denmark Update - October 2009
Amnesty International’s Goldstone Campaign, with a review of statements from other NGOs
Amnesty International has issued 15 statements in support of the Goldstone Mission. Members of the commission and its staff have conflicts of interest involving Amnesty. Diakonia, Trocaire, Amnesty-Europe, FIDH, Adalah, PCHR, and Al Haq have used the Goldstone report to bolster their calls for “war crimes” cases. Palestinian NGOs’ press release calling on states to “re-evaluate their relationship with Israel.” B’Tselem condemned the Israeli government for not cooperating with the Goldstone mission and “provided assistance to the investigative staff….”
Human Rights Watch: Selling Goldstone’s Indictment
HRW is leading the campaign to promote the widely criticized “Goldstone report” on the Gaza War, with close to thirty statements to date. Repeatedly equates Israel to Hamas, immorally compare its response to attacks on civilians to the genocide in Sudan, and falsely accuse Israel of “willfully” killing civilians and “deliberate infliction of suffering on civilians.” The close links between Goldstone and HRW continue to constitute a clear conflict of interest. HRW’s extensive media campaign diverts attention from the criticism and scandals that plague the organization.
House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report
Goldstone relies on statements, publications, and submissions from highly politicized and biased NGOs. This is inconsistent with the claim to have conducted a “fact finding mission.” By adopting the flawed methodologies, false claims, and distortions of international law from the NGOs, Goldstone renders his entire report and its conclusions invalid. The report includes more than 500 direct citations from NGOs that lack credibility. Goldstone and other members of the commission have conflicts of interest involving close links to HRW, Amnesty International, PCHR.
Made in Europe: How government funded NGOs shaped the Goldstone report
The Goldstone report is primarily based on statements, publications, and submissions from highly politicized and biased NGOs, many of which are funded by European governments. Beyond adopting the flawed methodologies and false claims, the funding provided for these NGOs links European governments to the Goldstone report, and its contribution to anti-Israel demonization. European-funded groups PCHR, Al Mezan, Al Haq, and Adalah – are also at the forefront of the “lawfare” campaigns that abuse the universal jurisdiction provisions in the legal codes of a number of Western countries using allegations of “war crimes.”
Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO “cut and paste”
The Goldstone report is primarily based on NGO statements, publications, and submissions – from B’tselem, PCHR, Al-Haq, HRW, and many others – copying the NGO biases, flawed methodology, and false claims. Following HRW and Amnesty, evidence of human shields is ignored. The report repeats NGO distortions of international law, including the false legal claim that Gaza remains occupied. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Goldstone’s report asserts that the “data provided by non-governmental sources with regard to the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent.”
HRW’s Credibility Gap: 14 Versions of the Abed Rabbo “White Flags” Incident
First « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 » Last