HRW’s “corrections” to Foreman’s exposé raise more questions and create more confusion, while avoiding core issues like credibility, bias against Israel, and the Garlasco gag order.

1) They claim that “a number of the HRW staff have military expertise” – what does this mean regarding credibility of combat analysis? Basic training, some time in front of a computer, etc. does not provide the “military experience” necessary to assess actions and weapons (drones, WP, etc.) in Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon or Iraq. There is still no information to assess Garlasco’s qualifications as HRW’s "senior military analyst."

2) Regarding the employment of Lucy Mair in the anti-israel MENA division: “One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian pressure group Electronic Intifada without her permission….” Mair published more than one article in EI. These have been online for years, with no record of any objection by her. HRW’s response does not alter Foreman’s point that Mair was a highly visible anti-Israel propagandist before being hired by HRW.

3) Detailed HRW reports and accompanying media campaigns are not comparable to short press releases, whether on Kashmir or Palestinian terror. Reports indicate a major investment, while stand-alone press releases are quickly forgotten, as detailed in NGO Monitor research.

4) HRW officials assert that they “never pressured Mr. Garlasco to change his findings,” but they refuse to explain inconsistencies and changing “forensic” analysis in Gaza Beach and other examples.