NGO Monitor: Drones Latest Weapon in HRW Campaign Against Israel
- 2006 Gaza Beach incident
- 2006 Lebanon War
- 2009 Gaza War
- Civilian Casualties
- Combatants Identified as Civilians
- Double Standards
The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law
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.
HRW, anti-Israel Campaigns, and White Phosphorous: Condemn First, Correct (Maybe) Later
On January 10, HRW launched a public relations campaign condemning Israel for allegedly using white phosphorus weapons unlawfully in the conflict with Hamas. HRWs large budget, and its media access via the "halo effect" results in the amplification of these reports in the press and through other NGOs, without independent investigation or verification. HRWs disproportionate focus on this issue diverts attention from Hamas systematic use of human shields, its indiscriminate rocket attacks, and Irans role in fomenting the conflict.
Examining Human Rights Watch in 2008: Double Standards and Post-Colonial Ideology
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