Smearing Human Rights Groups

Perhaps the saddest thing about the "pro-Israel" political mobilization in the United States is that it's spurred a lot of demagogic and insane attacks against human rights organizations around the world. New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz, for example, lights into them for hypothetically failing to report hypothetical human rights violations in Lebanon:

But be sure that neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International will be there to accuse and denounce. After all, the U.S. is not at all involved and neither are the always culpable Israelis. This is war among Arabs so no one really cares who kills whom and how. That is, no one of the professional careers.

This notion that HRW and Amnesty only criticize Israel because they exclusively criticize Israel is ridiculous. Here's an item attacking the government of Bahrain. Here's one attacking the government of Iran. Here's one attacking the government of Egypt. That's all within the past week.

And right here is the HRW item about Lebanon that Peretz says HRW would never release -- in English, in Arabic, and in French. These outfits criticize Israel when they believe Israel is committing human rights violations, just as they criticize Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, the United States, Russia, China and everyone else.

Comments

There's also this (http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE180032007) from Amnesty. What's especially douche-baggy about Marty's post is that the Amnesty and HRW pieces were both posted on their respective websites in May, thus confirming that Marty doesn't do even a cursory investigation before spewing b.s. like this. For fug's sake, can't the man even task his personal assistant with doing minimal research? At least JK's inconsiderable talents could be put to some decent use.

Posted by jw | June 4, 2007 12:18 PM

Thanks, Matt. You have done a public service.

Posted by Jim M | June 4, 2007 12:30 PM

It's been my impression that many of these groups have been quite fair about Israel, without double standards. Which has actually got some people upset that they don't rag constantly on Israel (with attendent subtle anti-Semitism about lots of Jews donating to Amnesty International, et al.).

Anyway, though, there has been a double standard in some of the coverage: you hear a lot of questioning about Israel's actions you don't hear about Lebanon, but that double standard is not coming from groups like Amnesty International.

Posted by DAS | June 4, 2007 12:39 PM

Would the cruelest thing we could do to Marty be to ignore him?

Posted by Scott Ferguson | June 4, 2007 12:40 PM

And what's so dangerous about these kinds of accusations of anti-semitism is that they seep into the public discourse. An individual, specific allegation can be challenged and refuted. But if people make spurious accusations enough, it's "out there"-- and it's much harder to refute those vague notions. I remember I was mentioning in a comments section once (I think it was Bloggingheads) and someone responded "Everyone knows HRW and Amnesty International are anti-Semitic." These sort of things, as ridiculous as they are, do make an impact.

Posted by Freddie | June 4, 2007 12:42 PM

And of course to be fair, let's hear the other side.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180867544453&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | June 4, 2007 12:47 PM

SLC -- That's not "the other side". Peretz was accusing Amnesty of ignoring the Lebanese government's assult on Palestinian refugee camps. Like some sort of anti-semitic nut, Peretz is obsessed with Israel, and his Israeli monomania made the actions of the Lebanese government and the actions of Amnesty, into an issue all about Israel.

But it isn't one.

Posted by Ikram | June 4, 2007 1:00 PM

And right here is the HRW item about Lebanon that Peretz says HRW would never release - Matt

Hehe, great post.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 4, 2007 1:03 PM

The problem is far worse than a lot of demagogic and insane attacks against human rights organizations around the world. The same people who demogague human-rights organizations also demagogue widely respected news gathering organizations like the BBC.

Martin Peretz hates the BBC so much he almost gloats in a blog he wrote on Friday slandering Alan Johnston the captured BBC journalist:

Frankly, I don't have much sympathy for Alan Johnston, who is among the people he loves, the people for whom he did the kind of propaganda in which the BBC specializes, authoritative in voice, lachrymose in message, banal in argument. And I don't think that his taped message to the world is one of those pathetic instances of the Stockholm syndrome in which people have been won over by their captors.

This was an utterly despicable blog and there should be no place for it in any respectable magazine. Even worse, is that not one TNR staffer has had the courage to criticize or even comment on Peretz's vile attack on a fellow professional journalist. If this is an example of journalistic courage at The New Republic we need more whippersnappers.

Posted by ndm | June 4, 2007 1:13 PM

I realize America has pathetically feeble libel laws, but Peretz should be more careful.

Posted by Pithlord | June 4, 2007 1:45 PM

Cynical hackery or genuine blind zealotry? I think it's the latter.

Posted by abb1 | June 4, 2007 2:00 PM

But...but...but...ANTI-SEMITISM!

Posted by mq | June 4, 2007 2:09 PM

In the 1980's I worked for a human rights group focused on Latin America that routinely, publicly, went after Cuba and other left-identified abusers. But if we criticized U.S.-backed gov'ts or groups, people like Elliott Abrams would claim we never criticized Cuba and their claim would get reported unchecked.

Posted by c | June 4, 2007 2:16 PM

There is even an Israeli organization, NGO Monitor, devoted to perpetuating demagogic and insane attacks against human rights organizations around the world.

In a wonderful piece of Newspeak NGO Monitor describes itself as promoting critical debate and accountability of human rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli conflict. Its real goal is to propagandize against human rights organizations and spread misinformation about them.

Posted by ndm | June 4, 2007 2:36 PM

Groups like Amnesty and HRW have elevated the use of words like "indiscriminate" and "disproportional" to an art form.

So much so that they can pretty much criticize any kind of warfare or police action.

Posted by David | June 4, 2007 4:34 PM

First, certain NGOs, the UN being the most egregious, do single Israel out (but of course if a liberal blogger were to say link approvingly to the video testimony of UN Watch, they would draw catcalls rather than cheers from their fans).

Second, HRW and Amnesty aren't perfect. Amnesty in particular evidences little to no symphathy with the difficult choices Israel faces in protecting its own citizens safety. As the HRW report condemning the Lebanese army shows, there is a more systemic problem with how Human Rights NGOs address state use of force to combat non-state actors who deliberately use civilians as human shields. Calling for al-Fatah Islam to act responsibly is hopelessly naiive.

Finally, there is the problem that while every HRW condemnation of Israel is news, HRW criticism of other nations frequently goes unreported. The reason for this, too is more complicated than omnipresent anti-Semitism, but certainly reflects an anti-Israel bias.

This is a complex issue, which could have made for a thoughtful blog post. Instead we got another edition of "Peretz is a putz."

Posted by mhp | June 4, 2007 4:37 PM

Urban fighting creates civilian casualties.

When these groups call on the parties involved to find themselves another battlefield -they sound idiotic.

Posted by David | June 4, 2007 4:57 PM

Finally, there is the problem that while every HRW condemnation of Israel is news, HRW criticism of other nations frequently goes unreported. The reason for this, too is more complicated than omnipresent anti-Semitism, but certainly reflects an anti-Israel bias.

Exactly the opposite. It's the people attacking the human rights organizations as anti-Semitic who constantly publicize those organizations critiques. They do so in the process of calling them anti-Semitic.

Posted by Freddie | June 4, 2007 5:34 PM

Amnesty in particular evidences little to no symphathy with the difficult choices Israel faces in protecting its own citizens safety.

I frankly don't think it's Amnesty's job to dole out this sort of sympathy. I think it's my job to read what Amnesty has to say and decide gee, in light of everything Israel faces, I'm okay with them doing this particular thing (and in fact, that's often where I come out). But I'd like the human rights organizations to be objective and try not to get involved in judging who has a legitimate grievance and who doesn't, because they'll never get any credibility that way.

Posted by Steve | June 4, 2007 6:00 PM

Here's a thought--if insurgents fight in an urban environment you send in soldiers armed with rifles and shoot them. You don't use artillery in those situations. Yes, this increases casualties among the soldiers, but taking those risks is part of doing their duty.

I don't think governments need the sympathy and encouragement of people when they inflict collateral damage and I for one feel no need to offer them any. They need to be criticized, in hopes that the criticism will have some effect and they will be more careful in the future.

As for Lebanon, I've noticed the usual lefty critics of Israel that I read have been equally critical of Lebanon for killing civilians, just as they were also critical of Ethiopia's behavior in Somalia.

Posted by Donald | June 4, 2007 6:41 PM

well, there is progress here, to that extent that now when MY links to the Raving Racist he makes it clear and unambiguous he is linking to an unhinged Raving Racist.

MY reads the neoconservative TNR so we don't have to. thanks, Matt.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | June 4, 2007 7:01 PM

To be fair, those organizations are a lot softer on China than they might be if it weren't the biggest and most powerful country in the world...

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 4, 2007 8:36 PM

EXCELLENT PIC OF THE ZIONIST NEOCONS

http://i10.tinypic.com/2vabi2u.jpg

AND THEIR BETRAYAL OF AMERICA

Posted by Jason | June 4, 2007 9:08 PM

Amnesty in particular evidences little to no symphathy with the difficult choices Israel faces in protecting its own citizens safety.

Back in the 1980's and 1990's, I used to do public speaking and volunteer organizing for AI in NYC. I was invited to speak to a Mensa group about AI's work in Latin America. At the Q & A, a man accused AI of having an inherent bias against Israel. I asked him to elaborate. He said that AI did not do work on human rights issues in Arabic countries. I told him that was absurd, that my own group had done wor on behalf of cases in Morocco, Algeris, Tunisia and Syria.

He then said that Israel was at war and that you had to treat nations at war differently. I told him that I agreed with that and that the Geneva Conventions were developed for that very reason. He said that was not what he meant. [no kidding] He said that you could not judge Israel by the same standards that you judge the rest of the world. I told him that if you believed that then we had nothing to talk about. If you apply one standard to all nations, you are fair. When you start to make exceptions and distinctions, bias permeates the process. MHP's comments merely confirms that.

BTW, Matt, this accusation of AI ignoring one set of abuses while calling attention to another is virtual ancient history.

Posted by Randy Paul | June 4, 2007 10:36 PM

Groups like Amnesty and HRW have elevated the use of words like "indiscriminate" and "disproportional" to an art form.

As opposed to the elevation of the phrase 'anti-Semitic' or 'anti-American', which are designed to accomplish a different purpose.

I frankly don't think it's Amnesty's job to dole out this sort of sympathy.

It's absolutely not AI's job. And that's what ires those people who invariably focus on the US section of its annual reports while ignoring everything else.

The whole point is to have a set of independent criteria and apply them globally, regardless of the form of government or situation within a country. 'Difficult choices' can just be a fudge to line up with the standard 'Good Countries can do Bad Things because they're not Bad Countries.'

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 5, 2007 4:04 PM

Here's a thought--if insurgents fight in an urban environment you send in soldiers armed with rifles and shoot them. You don't use artillery in those situations.

And if their positions are fortified ?

The commanders on the ground can make these decisions, not some Amnesty apparatchik on the other side of the world.

Posted by David | June 5, 2007 7:02 PM

cbwnosgmu kthv fzwltjg ubnlxtg kumc liacw uyonamg

Posted by njbxvs gcnqw | June 7, 2007 11:41 AM

ytwebxls raoxz yrowlfs mnqziacv vsazxy wubfotxd lxuwfy http://www.mhsrfwni.dlvo.com

Posted by wlakhqfen dwpl | June 7, 2007 11:42 AM