Gilad Shalit is not a high priority for human rights NGOs. There is no evidence that NGOs have undertaken sustained campaigns in support of Shalits rights. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have made only infrequent references to Shalit, always in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction," and "collective punishment." Most Israeli groups have published only one or two statements in support of Shalit.
The exploitation of international legal rhetoric is a major weapon in the political war to delegitmize Israeli anti-terror operations. During the Gaza conflict, NGOs have selectively charged Israel with "violations of law," "crimes against humanity," "war crimes," "disproportionate force" and "indiscriminate attacks." Many NGOs are already calling for international "investigations" and "lawfare" based on these accusations, in order to harass Israeli officials and promote a negative media image of Israel. At the same time, the violation of Gilad Shalits human rights and Hamas use of human shields are ignored.
Quantitative and Qualitative analysis of HRW in 2008 reflect the portrayal of Israel as the second worst abuser of human rights in the Middle East. HRW's use of international legal and human rights terminology singles out Israel for condemnation, while other serious human rights abusers receive little coverage. Evidence suggests that specific HRW personnel (Joe Stork, Sarah Leah Whitson and Marc Garlasco) are responsible for responsible for much of the bias, and when other individuals are centrally involved, the reports are less tendentious