To read this article, click here.


"In attacking Mr. Bernstein’s moral critique, HRW is attempting to defend itself but actually highlights the wide gap between the organization’s behavior and the moral standards it claims to promote. The result is a deeply flawed argument and a reminder of how far HRW has deviated from and betrayed its founding ethos. The HRW onslaught charges Mr. Bernstein with seeking to limit human rights monitoring to closed despotic regimes, while democracies are "spared criticism for human rights abuses." In reality, Mr. Bernstein and other critics focus on HRW’s warped distribution of resources between reports on open societies, and Israel in particular, in contrast to the minimal interest in closed countries ruled by despots. As Mr. Bernstein notes, Israel, like the United States, has a vigorous critical press, an independent judiciary and a myriad of human rights organizations. As a result, in setting priorities, Israel, like other open democracies based on the rule of law, should logically get less attention than brutal regimes where these elements are missing entirely. This is clearly not the case for HRW."