Correction: Human Rights Watch

[Scurrilous]

"A Magazine article, “Explosive Territory” (March 28) by Jonathan Foreman, mostly about Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) work on Israel, requires clarification and correction. The magazine said that HRW had not published any report on the post-election abuses in Iran when in fact the organisation published one in February this year. Marc Garlasco, the former senior military analyst for HRW, was not the only person in the organisation who had military experience; a number of the HRW staff have military expertise. In the 20-year Kashmir conflict HRW has published nine reports, not four as the article stated. One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian pressure group Electronic Intifada without her permission but was not directly employed by that group, as the article suggests. Although HRW never produced a full report about the shelling at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in 2007 it did write three press releases, not one as the article stated. We regret the errors. Mr Foreman quoted a critic of HRW saying the group “cares about Palestinians when mistreated by Israelis but is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arabs”. In fact Human Rights Watch has reported on abuses of Palestinians by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. Mr Foreman cited unnamed sources that said Mr Garlasco resented what he felt was pressure to sex up claims of Israeli violations. HRW and Mr Garlasco both say HRW never pressured Mr Garlasco to change his findings. We are happy to clarify HRW’s position.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7086749.ece


‘Sunday Times’ (UK) corrects its neocon attack on Human Rights Watch

<snip>

"Last week, the UK national newspaper ‘The Sunday Times’ featured an article attacking Human Rights Watch. In tones familiar to similar attacks on both HRW and Amnesty International, there was no prize for guessing which country was deemed to be getting undue attention:

For instance, HRW has published five heavily publicised reports on Israel and the Palestinian territories since the January 2009 war…Noah Pollak, a New York writer who has led some of the criticisms against HRW, points out that it cares about Palestinians when maltreated by Israelis, but is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arabs.

Of course, the usual suspects jumped on the report, including NGO Monitor. I trust equal publicity will be given to the correction printed in this week’s newpaper. In fairness, it is quite long, so for ease, here is a summary:

* The magazine said that HRW had not published any report on the post-election abuses in Iran when in fact the organisation published one in February this year.

* Marc Garlasco, the former senior military analyst for HRW, was not the only person in the organisation who had military experience; a number of the HRW staff have military expertise.

* In the 20-year Kashmir conflict HRW has published nine reports, not four as the article stated.

* One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian solidarity site Electronic Intifada without her permission but was not directly employed by that group, as the article suggests.

* Although HRW never produced a full report about the shelling at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in 2007 it did write three press releases, not one as the article stated.

* Writer Jonathan Foreman quoted a critic of HRW saying the group “cares about Palestinians when mistreated by Israelis but is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arabs”. In fact Human Rights Watch has reported on abuses of Palestinians by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan.

* Foreman cited unnamed sources that said Garlasco resented what he felt was pressure to sex up claims of Israeli violations. HRW and Garlasco both say HRW never pressured Garlasco to change his findings.

Well, at least they spelled all the names right.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/times-uk-corrects-its-neocon-attack-on-human-rights-watch.html


Related thread:

Nazi scandal engulfs Human Rights Watch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=307906&mesg_id=307906

[LeftishBrit]

1. Thanks for clarifications

There is often a lot in common between anti-Zionist pieces on Israel and hostile pieces on human rights organizations.

[Scurrilous]

2. You're welcome.

:thumbsup:

[shira]

11. You think criticism from Robert Bernstein (founder of HRW) is as hostile as any anti-zionist piece?

Here's Bernstein...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x290651

Here's an analysis of HRW's initial response to Bernstein...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x290651#291233

[LeftishBrit]

17. I was referring to the likes of Foreman...

and I was certainly not saying that *all* criticisms of human rights organizations are as hostile as *any* anti-Zionist attack on Israel.

I was just saying that there are commonalities between *some* pieces of both sorts: i.e. a tendency to mix some genuine criticisms with a lot of very misleading information, to cherry-pick information, and to change the goalposts every time some piece of information is proved wrong. You get the same, or even more so, with regard to articles about vaccinations by people who are suspicious of vaccinations!

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Here's the link to the thread on the original article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x307906

Those orchestrated attacks on human rights groups are tedious and vindictive, imo. And I noticed that some dimwit from that NGO Watch has already commented on the corrections by totally ignoring the actual corrections and going on to demand to know what HRW means by military experience. Sometimes I wish there were people out there who'd give those idiots the same treatment and go digging back through every word they've ever said and devote every waking moment to them...

[shira]

4. Concerns about HRW's "corrections"...

Yisrael Medad wrote:
What does "military experience" mean? Intense, long or rudimentary and nonprofessional? Press release are ephemeral, reports are serious. Articles published without permission - and no further action taken? That would appear compliance of a sort.

and this...

Frayda Leibtag wrote:
HRW’s “corrections” to Foreman’s expose 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 on line for seven 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.

Frayda Leibtag
Researcher, NGO Monitor

HRW's founder has major problems with the organization and then there's the creepy Nazi obsession, suppression of evidence WRT Gaza Beach and human shields, fundraising in S. Arabia based on HRW's Israel bashing, history of HRW's team being anti-zionist activists, etc.

And people wonder why the vast majority of Israelis don't take HRW seriously. :eyes:

[azurnoir]

12. who gives a sh*t whether or not Israeli's take HRW seriously

apparently their American supporters do enough to have a near obsession with smearing HRW

[shira]

13. Should people from B'tselem and BTS take HRW seriously? Because if not....

....then what purpose does HRW serve other than playing into Hamas, Fatah, or Iran's hands?

HRW wants to effect change in Israel, right? How can they effect change in Israel if not even B'tselem or BTS takes them seriously WRT bogus or shoddy reports, denying human shielding by Palestinians, etc?

If the point is to just rally the masses in some mob mentality against Israel, then the crap that HRW is attempting makes more sense - right?

[azurnoir]

14. Speaking of attempting to rally a "mob mentality"

what is your purpose here? Hmmmmm

Do Israeli's take B'tselem seriously? Really my point is that what really matters here is how the rest of the world takes not just what HRW says but Israel's actions as a whole as reported by more than just HRW which by and large is correct on Israel, what you fail to recognize or is just hoping that others will is that HRW reports on many countries not just Israel lets take a look-see at HRW's home page as proof

http://www.hrw.org/

[shira]

15. The original founder of HRW doesn't take HRW seriously on Israel - ever wonder why?

My 'purpose' here? Why, of course, I'm a shill of the vaunted worldwide and secretive "Jewish Lobby".

:evilgrin:

How many times must I repeat myself.

[azurnoir]

16. Are you a shill for the Israeli lobby ?

only you know that and seriously I doubt it as to HRW's founder he resigned 12 years ago and has been little heard from since except for his NYT op-ed

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I would expect a shill would be a lot more polished and less inclined to try to alienate than that..

I think folk that repeat all the talking points but do so in a way that offends and annoys most of their audience apart from others of a like-mind are just doing it out of a labour of love sort of thing. I'd guess that a shill would use far more of the communication tools (eg judge the knowledge level of yr audience and respond accordingly) available in the Hasbara handbook. I'd be thinking their intention is to win people over to thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts about Israel and the way it treats the Palestinians, not to fling around regular accusations of antisemitism and dishonesty at people who they disagree with. I also suspect that the I/P forum here's just far too small and isolated for any shills to be bothered with...

btw, Shira's claim that the vast majority of Israelis don't take HRW seriously is wrong, I would think. I'd suspect that the vast majority of Israelis wouldn't even know who HRW are, let alone have an opinion on them. But without any reputable polls that have been done in that area, I would suspect that saying 'the vast majority of Israelis' translates as 'this is my own personal opinion' :)

[azurnoir]

25. the same goes for "mainsream" n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Yeah, I noticed that a long while back...

I'm wondering how anyone could define what the 'Jewish mainstream' is in such a way that it becomes solely about the I/P conflict and who that person thinks agrees with their own personal view on the conflict. I would hazard a guess that any 'Jewish mainstream' is about a hell of a lot more than the I/P conflict, and that people with very different views on the conflict all would make up the Jewish mainstream....

[shira]

28. Our resident Israeli DU'er on the 'mainstream' not taking HRW seriously

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x283952

"any wonder why every israeli i know doesn't take HRW seriously......"

==========

Let's also not forget the views of B'tselem directors, BTS, etc...

"Even Israel’s most vociferous domestic critics—The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and B’Tselem—acknowledge that “Israel did not have a policy of intentionally killing civilians….”<25> Jessica Montell, Executive Director of B’Tselem, wrote, “I was disturbed by the framing of Israel’s military operation as part of ‘an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience.’ The facts presented in the report itself would not seem to support such a far-reaching conclusion.”<26> While condemning the operation as disproportionate, or worse, these organizations did not cross the “huge moral” line—the line irresponsibly and mendaciously crossed by the Goldstone Report—of accusing Israel of intentionally targeting civilians for death. As the New York Times reported:

“irtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct. ‘I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack of civilian infrastructure,’ said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem. ‘It is not convincing.’”<27>"
http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics/517-alan-dershowitz-the-case-against-the-goldstone-report-a-study-in-evidentiary-bias-270110

Goldstone was a board member of HRW and HRW strongly supports his conclusions which B'tselem finds unconvincing.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Will you stop dragging DUers who are much better people than you into yr posts?

They're NOT saying what you claimed. So keep them out of yr posts to me, okay?

Thought I'd best return and spell it out in detail for those who are a bit slow on the uptake:

Yr rather ridiculous and unsupported comment was: 'And people wonder why the vast majority of Israelis don't take HRW seriously.'

What the DUer you linked to said was something very different: 'any wonder why every israeli i know doesn't take HRW seriously......'

Even if what the DUer said was correct*, it doesn't make it the same as yr comment unless he knows every Israeli, which even if he's the most outgoing partying Israeli in the country, I very much doubt...


*I hope the DUer you linked to doesn't take it the wrong way when I say he may have employed hyperbole in his comment, and I doubt he and every Israeli he knows talk about HRW. I know I've sometimes gone '...every Australian I know' and had them all agreeing with whatever I said, but it's a rhetorical tool and not meant to be taken literally.

[shira]

30. Take your own advice and leave me out of your conversations w/ others before telling me what to do

Also, it's a pity you're in such denial about mainstream Israeli views on HRW.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. In case you didn't notice, I was actually sticking up for you...

But seeing you've so clearly taken offense at someone pointing out that it's doubtful yr a shill, then so be it. I'll stay silent in future.

I'll tell you to leave DUers who I consider to be friends out of yr posts to me as many times as it takes to seep into yr head. And apart from that, he wasn't even making the claim that you did in this thread. Not sure how you manage to twist pointing that out into being denial...

[shira]

32. Stop it - no you weren't

I consider Pelsar to be my friend too, so I'm certain he doesn't mind me bringing him up.

When B'tselem and other highly critical Israeli groups find Goldstone and HRW's conclusions unconvincing (like Israel's intent in Gaza or denying Hamas human shields) just imagine what other Israeli or American Jews who are less obsessed with criticizing Israel half their lives (like R.Bernstein the original HRW founder) think of such HR organizations.

Really now, this isn't rocket science Violet.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Stop what? I'll give a pre-emptive *no* on that one...

I really couldn't give a shit what you consider other DUers to be or what the fuck it has to do with me asking you not to continually bring other DUers who are far better people than you into yr posts when they're not even saying the same thing as what you claimed...

Y'know, yr really OTT and obsessive attitude about HRW and any human rights groups that dare to be critical of Israel reminds me of the way anti-choicers go on about Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. If it wasn't so amusing, it'd be damn creepy to watch...

on edit: just addressing yr belated edit

Really now, this isn't rocket science Violet, but I do admire your consistency.

No, it's not rocket science, which is why I posted in an earlier thread exactly why it's not rocket science. To repeat what I already said (and feel free to ask for more detailed explanations if you can't comprehend this:

Yr rather ridiculous and unsupported comment was: 'And people wonder why the vast majority of Israelis don't take HRW seriously.'

What the DUer you linked to said was something very different: 'any wonder why every israeli i know doesn't take HRW seriously......'

Even if what the DUer said was correct*, it doesn't make it the same as yr comment unless he knows every Israeli, which even if he's the most outgoing partying Israeli in the country, I very much doubt...


*I hope the DUer you linked to doesn't take it the wrong way when I say he may have employed hyperbole in his comment, and I doubt he and every Israeli he knows talk about HRW. I know I've sometimes gone '...every Australian I know' and had them all agreeing with whatever I said, but it's a rhetorical tool and not meant to be taken literally.

[shira]

34. That BS about you 'defending' me.

If my attitude is OTT regarding HRW, then how do you account for B'tselem, BTS, Robert Bernstein, Pelsar's acquaintances, etc... not finding HRW to be credible or reliable?

Best to pretend none of that is happening, right? Nothing to see here! ;)

And BTW, it's a bit hypocritical of you to demand I stop bringing other DU'ers up when you do it all the time obsessing about me.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I never said I was defending you. I said I was sticking up for you..

I dunno, but I recall arguing that you weren't a shill. I can always turn and argue the other way round if it'll make you happier, but I can't say I'll be able to put too much heart and soul into something I don't believe...

Yr attitude towards HRW and other human rights groups that dare to criticise Israel are irrational and completely OTT and very reminiscent of the way anti-choicers carry on about Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. I'm not sure at all why you think other people who are more articulate and have raised specific criticisms of an organisation that they've either supported or not had some obsessive frenzy going on about means that I must think yr the same as them. Yr on a whole different level and completely and utterly manic and irrational...

to address yr belated edit: I've got no idea what the fuck yr babbling about incoherently now, but if yr not going to stop bringing DUers who are far better people than you into yr posts to hide behind as some sort of appeal to authority, just be honest and let me know...

[shira]

36. Whatever....now about criticism of HRW

Let's make this really simple b/c we all know how you savage your opponents here for not spending half their lives condemning Israel.

What do you find wrong about HRW's handling of the Arab/Israel conflict? Anything at all? Are you one who cannot handle criticism of HRW?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. You haven't gone back and read the posts where I've had to edit to keep up with yr edits!

Let's make this really simple b/c we all know how you savage your opponents here for not criticizing Israel half their lives.

Who's 'we all'? I don't recall ever doing what you just claimed. Is there any chance you can stick to reality instead of making up stuff?

As to yr 'questions'. You really have major problems comprehending what's said to you. Only a few threads back you refused to answer a question I asked you and told me that you hardly bother replying to my posts and questions, so I think you can surely understand that you can shove yr 'questions' somewhere warm and damp for all I care :)

[shira]

38. Pity that someone 'rational' like you just can't tolerate any criticism of HRW

In your world, only Israel should be criticized and that criticism should run constantly 24/7 with no time to think about criticizing anyone else. Never once have you criticized HRW for anything, nor agreed that anything they do WRT the Arab/Israel conflict is wrong.

Oh - and if you're going to claim that my criticism of HRW is irrational, OTT, and manic - please provide at least one example to back up that claim.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Wow, they're some mighty silly stances I have there! Thanks for telling me what I think!

I honestly had no idea at all! ;)

[shira]

48. They passed silly a long time ago. Thought you should know.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Apparently so. I'm just gobsmacked at how silly they are!

I was wondering if maybe we should set up some sort of process when it comes to saying what my views are? Would you be happy with one where I don't say what my views are until you've been sent them by email, edited them, and given them approval to be posted? I could even be removed totally from the process if you want to ask for the assistance of any DUer who shares yr opinions about me? I figure doing it that way would involve the least effort from me, and the most satisfaction from yr side of things. Everyone else will more than likely think yr being really ridiculous, but who am I to tell them they're just being ExTrEmIsTs?

[shira]

52. Good to see you acknowledging it. That's the first step.

When it comes to a 'process' on your views regarding HRW, for example, it's really simple, Violet. Stay on topic and be honest and forthcoming. You're capable of so much more than your juvenile and clumsy attempts to harass and humiliate your opponents. I'm disappointed that you never learned that your style of mocking and derision is the usual refuge of scoundrels when reason and fact fail.

Come on, you can do better Violet. Try again, dear.

Sincerely,
Shira

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I know I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for you to tell me other views I hold!

Are you mad at me?

[shira]

55. Aw, I'm giving you a chance to articulate your views and back your assertions

It doesn't seem you're capable of doing so.

Pity.

And of course I'm not mad at you. Would you like me to be?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. I thought you'd already started 'articulating' them for me..

I mean, you were firing on all cylinders there telling me what 'we all' (btw, you never did say if yr speaking only for yrself or for a group) know my views are. Don't let me get in the way of that as I'm actually curious to know what my reaction was to reading 'Dying for Jerusalem' by Walter Lacquer. See, I'm only up to page 45 and doubt given how busy work's going to be for the next few months that I'll get much further, it'll save me having to read the rest of it if you could just tell me what I thought of it...

Of course I wouldn't like you to get all mad at me. I was just worried given the very stilted nature of yr post that our warm and caring relationship may have been under some danger of collapsing, that's all...

[shira]

58. I thought I explained to you that I'm giving you every opportunity to articulate those views on HRW

Didn't I write something to that effect in one of my more recent posts? Why, yes I did! Imagine that! You must have 'forgotten'. Oh well, no worries dear. We're all waiting for you to deal with the actual facts of the matter and defend your POV. I know you can do it!

Whenever you're ready. Take your time.

And I'm so glad to see that our warm and caring relationship hasn't been compromised.

Whew.

:pals:

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yeah, I picked up on that. My response is as I've already stated...

Was there something yr not quite picking up on in what I've said? I can repeat it as many times as necessary...


Who's this 'we all' you keep referring to? I don't mean to hurt yr feelings, but I'm not the most perceptive person around, and I've noticed that the serious players in this forum (read that as being regular posters who consider themselves pro-Israeli and who put up arguments devoid of bigotry or beliefs that there's no such thing as partisan pro-Israeli sites) tend to distance themselves from you and yr posts. While you seem to attract the frenzied Arab/Muslim hating trolls like Sezu for example, the more serious folk steer clear, so that's why I'm curious to know who 'we all' are.

I guess as blunt as I can get is that I think yr one of those zealoted trolls who don't listen to what others say and instead invent other people's views for them. Given the number of times you've accused me of being antisemitic and dishonest,only a complete nutcase such as yrself would entertain the thought that I'd waste my time trying to enter into any sort of serious discussion with you, given that you've blown every chance in the past...

So just go back to what you do best, which is outright lying about what my POV is...

[shira]

61. Looks like you're getting huffy again, what a shame.

I'm giving you every opportunity to prove me wrong. Here's what I wrote some time ago about folks like yourself...

"There's something about those who criticize others’ views, often viciously, but who are not courageous enough to offer their own views as honestly as those they attack. For them, discussions like these are a kind of online game. One way to tell the difference between the two motivations is that one group is very careful to be sure they are understood and that they understand what others say. The other group often hides their beliefs and the meaning of what they say as far as possible so others can’t attack them."

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Looks like the time's come to start repeating what I said in the hope you might actually read it...

Was there something yr not quite picking up on in what I've said? I can repeat it as many times as necessary...


Who's this 'we all' you keep referring to? I don't mean to hurt yr feelings, but I'm not the most perceptive person around, and I've noticed that the serious players in this forum (read that as being regular posters who consider themselves pro-Israeli and who put up arguments devoid of bigotry or beliefs that there's no such thing as partisan pro-Israeli sites) tend to distance themselves from you and yr posts. While you seem to attract the frenzied Arab/Muslim hating trolls like Sezu for example, the more serious folk steer clear, so that's why I'm curious to know who 'we all' are.

I guess as blunt as I can get is that I think yr one of those zealoted trolls who don't listen to what others say and instead invent other people's views for them. Given the number of times you've accused me of being antisemitic and dishonest,only a complete nutcase such as yrself would entertain the thought that I'd waste my time trying to enter into any sort of serious discussion with you, given that you've blown every chance in the past...

So just go back to what you do best, which is outright lying about what my POV is...

[shira]

65. Maybe you don't notice you're up to your antics again, derailing the thread, going off-topic

The OP is about HRW, not about Shira, no matter how much you want to be my new BFF and talk about my popularity here (or lack thereof) with others. I'm only interested in substantive debate. If you're incapable or not courageous enough to stick to the topic at hand then we have nothing to discuss. You've made yourself clear what you think about me. I did the same about you in #45 and #61. So what? The OP is about HRW. Stick to that or don't.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Well, it took a long longer than is reasonable, but I'm glad you got it at last...

....we have nothing to discuss...

Yep. That's exactly what I've been saying repeatedly to you but you choose to ignore what I say...

No offense, but the reason I don't have any time for you is because you lie about me and what my POV is and it's not just once but repeatedly. I don't call that 'substantive' debate.

Anyway, now you've gotten the idea that I've got zero interest in humouring you and entering into some bizarre world where only you know what my POV is and where you speak on behalf of 'all of us', I'm very happy for you and unless you have more fascinating snippets of what I supposedly think about things to add to this thread, I can't say there'd be much for you to run with now...

[shira]

67. Yes, once again we see that you cannot tolerate criticism of HRW and that you are unable to defend

....HRW and your views on the organization. The extent of your contributions to this thread are limited to only attacking those who dare criticize an organization you view as infallible or "holy". Reason and fact have obviously failed you.

Pity.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. So you were lying about having nothing more to say?

And who is this royal 'we' you keep on insisting on using? I can't imagine anyone with any intelligence would allow you to be their spokesman on anything at all...

But I'm glad to see you've returned to informing everyone what I supposedly think about everything. So, can I get you doing something useful and telling everyone what I thought about that book I'm reading? I'd like to see that yr useful for at least something...

And when it comes to yr claim that I derailed the thread, it was you who responded to one of my posts initially, not the other way round. If yr so concerned, maybe you should do what you falsely claimed to have done a while back and stick me on ignore?

[shira]

70. Nope - just telling it like it is

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Telling what like it is? And who's the royal us you keep on referring to?

Yr so incredibly coy when it comes to filling in the blanks when it comes to who this 'us' is. How about you try to be as confident as you are when you tell outright lies about my POV?

btw, yr totally incorrect in this claim you made: 'The extent of your contributions to this thread are limited to only attacking those who dare criticize an organization you view as infallible or "holy". Reason and fact have obviously failed you.' What a load of crap. Have you even bothered reading this thread or anything at all I've said to you?

[shira]

72. How it is that you're incapable of discussing/defending HRW

And I'm not convinced at all that I'm lying about your POV. I have no reason to believe I'm wrong about your POV.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. How many times do I have to repeat I'm UNWILLING to discuss anything with you?

I do not have those same reservations with most other regulars in this forum who identify themselves as 'pro-Israel'. But you've lied incessantly and even now insist that you know better than me what my views on the conflict are, and you are so fucking dense that you keep on popping up expecting me to engage in some discussion with you where you continue to lie about me and my views? Sorry, but I think you can take yr idiotic control freak crap and shove it up yr arse...

So, are you happy that we leave it where you just make up complete bullshit about me and my views and dispense with the complete idiocy of you then demanding I tell 'us' (still noticed you didn't explain who this royal us is and I guess it must be that yr so deluded you actually believe you speak on behalf of a bunch of people) what my views are...

btw, it's also that habit you have of totally ignoring anything that gets said to you that leads me to believe it's a losers game to attempt to engage in any serious discussion with a creature like yrself. I could have sworn I said something in the post you replied to where I specifically pointed out something you said about my posts in this thread that was clearly dishonest, and you just totally ignored it...

[shira]

74. No, it's quite obvious you're incapable - and you're like this with many others here in I/P who...

....challenge your views from time to time.

Evasive and dismissive.

I'll answer any on-topic question so long as my opponent does the same. If you were more confident about your views, you wouldn't hesitate to do the same. But like you were told earlier, this is an "online game"....

[Violet_Crumble]

75. I don't know why you insist on trying to make out I think yr the same as most other DUers here...

Unlike most others here, yr a very dishonest person who lies nonstop about me and my views. The handful of others who engage in the same behaviour rarely if ever reply to me, and I tend to not waste my time with them, so they can't be who yr talking about.

I'm not the slighest bit interested in asking you any questions based on yr outright refusal to answer any questions I ask you. I'm confident in the views I hold, so much so that I don't feel the need to waste any serious time with a dishonest lunatic like yrself. Not really sure what yr purpose is from here, but I'm happy to build my post count :O)

[shira]

76. Well, I believe I know why you can't answer difficult questions and it has nothing to do with me

You simply don't want your own views (nasty or otherwise silly) attacked.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Well, you just go on believing what you like...

..and continue to tell everyone what my views supposedly are. I know I for one find it quite impressive to see the skill involved in you inventing rather silly views and then to see you turn around and tell everyone why these views you invent for me are so silly/bad/evil/antisemitic/fullofbloodlibel/extremist. You don't really need me in order for you to do any of that...


I really hate to have to keep on pointing you back to the reasons why I have little interest in dealing with you or yr 'questions', but I'm going to have to steer you back that way again as you just don't seem to grasp that it is due to yr behaviour in this forum over a long period of time. Personally, I tend to like a good difficult question every now and again to mull over, but seeing as how yr idea of what constitutes a difficult question is more than likely some bizarre thing where you shriek something along the lines of 'WHY WON'T YOU ADMIT THAT HRW HATE JEWS AND WANT TO USHER IN HOLOCAUST v2.0??', I'd prefer to not waste my time on that level of difficulty. Really, if yr so desperate to have a constructive discussion with me, you should examine yr own behaviour and try to do something about remedying those nasty bits where you say things that aren't true about me and my views. btw, that's not an invite to get yrself into some discussion with me. You had more chances than you deserved, and you blew every single one and you don't get any more chances from me...

[shira]

78. okay, I will!

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Great. Glad you've got yrself all sorted out there n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I think it's worth me clarifying my pointing out it's doubtful yr a shill..

In pointing out an obvious fact, I was inadvertantly sticking up for you. I have absolutely no doubt that while you obviously get yr latest talking points from somewhere else that you read, if you were a shill, you wouldn't be as abrasive and single-mindedly out to demonise those who don't see things yr way. While I doubt the I/P forum has ever had shills from either side of the fence, if one were to appear I would be guessing there'd be several posters they'd latch onto in order to try to convert their way of thinking, and I'd possibly be one of them. Because I spent some time debating abortion alongside fantastic people like Iverglas (hey to K if yr reading!), I encountered a few anti-choice shills who on finding out I was a single mum who considered abortion but decided against it would latch onto me and be ever so pleasant and portray their views as ultimately moderate and out of a concern for women like me, but when I didn't fall into line they'd get the craps and move onto another target. Yr not like the shills, Shira. Yr so wrapped up in 'defending' Israel that you take a scorched earth outlook towards people like myself and others, and seem to lose the bigger picture that yr aim should be to be getting people to be more sympathetic to Israel and its security concerns, not less. I'm very aware of Israel's existential fears and paranoia and most of the time I have a lot of sympathy about why they exist even if I'm totally and utterly opposed to how those fears manifest themselves in the treatment of the Palestinian people. But there's times I read yr posts with all the hysterical leg-humping of Israel and I think to myself: 'Shit, if it wasn't for the fact that I know some really nice folk who live in Israel, I wish the whole place would just vanish in a puff of smoke just to watch Shira's head explode.' There's times in this forum I've read yr 'contributions' and noticed how most regulars who see themselves as 'pro-Iraeli' tend to give you a wide berth and I can almost feel some of them cringing at times. So to finish up this long paragraph, I'd like to suggest you strive to attain the dizzying heights of self-improvement where one day I'll look at yr posts and go 'Sheez, if I didn't know better, Shira's persuasive yet rather manipulative and orchestrated arguments make me wonder if she's a shill.' But right now yr about as subtle and unskilled as a suicide bomber is...

[azurnoir]

42. I suspect the "talking points" come from a site called

"MegaPhone" which is a site that promotes ProIsrael or what passes for it talking points

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Ah, I was wondering where the mother-lode might be located n/t

[shira]

45. To clarify

It used to be that I gave opponents with extreme views the benefit of the doubt. I assumed that since I didn't know them, then at the very least they could be reasoned with, be honest, and be fair and open. There would be give and take, and at the very least debates would be a learning experience where I could question and refine or modify my own views. I tried not assuming the worst WRT Israel's most hostile critics.

No longer.

Sadly - at this point, when I see extreme views articulated against Israel, the very first thing I assume is that the 'critic' is closed-minded, irrational, dishonest, and a true-believer hostile to Israel and impervious to any reasoning. Not too different than closed-minded religious fanatic rightwing missionaries I've had the utter misfortune of 'conversing' with. Since it's impossible to reason with fanatical missionaries, I found they had to be dealt with differently. Same goes with Israel bashers who spend half their lives condemning Israel. I find more often than not that my 'opponents' are very rarely reasonable, reality-based people I can have a conversation with. They're just as 'religious' as the missionaries.

Maybe this describes why I can't find work as a shill for the worldwide Jewish Lobby. ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I think you may have missed the point, Shira...

Maybe this describes why I can't find work as a shill for the worldwide Jewish Lobby. <lame winky face emoticon goes here>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't I telling you that yr far too hysterically emotional and clumsily inept to be a shill?





Anyway, me and my ever so extreme views have to rush off and track down my lost Medicare card so I don't end up having to pay a fortune to get a flu shot this afternoon. And I just pointed that out to get all you Americans who don't have universal healthcare to feel real jealous of me and the fact that I have a doctor that bulk bills! As that had zero to do with Israel, I imagine yr inbuilt *If It's Not About Israel Let's Not Bother With It* sensor will quickly rush over that bit!

[shira]

47. Well, you thought wrong.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Don't think so n/t

[azurnoir]

40. Is Pelsar the only Israeli you know?

now that I would like to doubt, geez I know more Israeli's and what I find is that the range of opinion runs the gamut from leftist to rightist same goes for American Jews who BTW are a bit more concerned with domestic politics than ME policy r Israel

[shira]

44. LOL....in the Boston Jewish community here, there are MANY Israeli Jews who I know

And I know even more American Jews living or studying in Israel now.

Based on what I know about them, views are divergent from left to (settler supporting) right.

Can't say I know or have met any who have articulated views as extreme as Gideon Levy or Seth Freedman.

They're not mainstream, no matter how much you wish it were so.

[azurnoir]

51. Seth Freedman is extremist that about says it all

as far as what you claim I wish for I have already gotten that, say isn't true that a good deal of the settlers are American by birth?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I've heard Mr Freedman called a lot of things, and usually always by extreme partisans...

I've seen him attacked relentlessly over at The Guardian by extreme partisans on either 'side'. The minute Seth says something they don't like, he's persona non-grata as far as they're concerned and he gets called all sorts of names. There was an instance here where some American popped up to insist that Mr Freedman was a hater of Israel, all the while ignoring that unlike them, Seth is actually Israeli and has served in the IDF.

I've tried to work out why Seth Freedman brings out such extreme reactions in people, and while I don't agree with all of what he writes, I can't work up that "Seth Is Such An Extremist Arsehole!!* mindset that others seem to do at the drop of a hat. Maybe it's coz when I see something from him I disagree with, I can look further and understand where he's coming from, and that his motives are good. Do I care if a whole lot of Israelis march in lockstep with him? Can't say I do. After all, that doesn't mean jack shit. Mass popularity doesn't equate to being right on something.

Anyay, back to the search for my Medicare card. I'm running out of time!

[shira]

56. That says it all? I'm thinking 'Ed Koch is a hatefilled wanker' says a bit more.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Uh, but Ed's a racist hatefilled wanker. Seth Freedman isn't n/t

[shira]

62. Of course, if you say so then it must be true.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Oh, okay. That's what I say! n/t

[azurnoir]

80. I would agree Koch is a wanker

So is the former mayor of St Paul Randy Kelly and for the same reason; that you apparently support Koch is hardly a surprise

[Violet_Crumble]

5. That Foreman article really was a shoddy hatchet-job...

Does anyone know if The Times is a bit of a RW newspaper? It's just that most of the articles and/or the comments I've read from it seem to take a very pro-Israel, pro-US, etc slant...

[shira]

6. What's worse is HRW's shoddy, weak response to the article

The Times must be RW based on publishing HRW founder Robert Bernstein's criticism
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6883034.ece

Because everyone knows that HRW's founder is a RWer who writes shoddy critiques of HRW.

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Sorry. I should have clarified by saying I'd like an answer from someone who actually knows...

So, I'll sit and wait for someone who actually knows whether or not The Times is a RW publication to reply...

on edit: I just read that it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, so my suspicions about the slant of that newspaper seem to be correct. As for what you consider to be shoddy or not, why do you insist on telling me? Are you still believing that I actually care about anything you think? I don't. You claimed in a very recent thread that my questions and comments are hardly worth responding to, yet for someone who claims that, yr quick to reply to a lot of my posts. I just find that really strange...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=307906&mesg_id=308256

[Scurrilous]

8. Looks to be a Murdoch rag:

"The Sunday Times is a Sunday broadsheet newspaper, distributed in the United Kingdom. The Sunday Times is published by Times Newspapers Ltd, a subsidiary of News International, which is in turn owned by News Corporation. Times Newspapers also owns The Times, but the two papers were founded independently and came under common ownership only in 1966. Rupert Murdoch's News International acquired the papers in 1981."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times

It also has (according to wikipedia) a "..Wienerite slant.."

That can't be good. :P

[Violet_Crumble]

9. It sounds like the equivalent of The Australian, another from the Murdoch stable..

That explains the sense I was getting that it was slanted to the Right....

[LeftishBrit]

18. It's a Murdoch paper and fairly RW

It's Britain's oldest newspaper, and used to be its most respected but has deteriorated since Rupert bought it in the 80s.

Not everyone who writes for it is RW, but its predominant tone is.

[shira]

19. Here's the real problem, LB

From post #3 above...

In the Garlasco case, pro-Israel activists showed that HRW’s ‘battlefield analyst’ was a collector of Nazi memorabilia. HRW’s reaction was to savage his critics and to dismiss their concerns out of hand. Even when HRW belatedly suspended Garlasco on full pay, their contemptuous dismissal of his critics and their concerns remained untouched under the news release.

With Bernstein, their (HRW) publicly stated reaction is again evasive and dismissive. Above all, however, its lack of respect or empathy for Bernstein’s soberly expressed concerns, tells you all that you need to know about how some of the world’s leading human rights organisations regard mainstream Jewish sensibilities....

...There has long been an instinctive reaction from groups such as HRW to savage their critics as being antagonistic pro-Israel lobbyists. There is no way that Robert Bernstein fits that ugly ethnic profiling, and yet HRW’s public reaction effectively treats him as just another pro-Israel snake in the grass. This suggests that HRW’s public reaction to Bernstein reflects an institutionalised inability to deal fairly and squarely with any concerns that are raised by Jews who don’t spend half their lives condemning Israel....

....For those of us who are concerned with antisemitism rather than Israel’s traumatised Public Relations, this is where attitudes to Israel rear their very ugly head. Even if HRW is entirely correct in every statement that it has ever made about Israel, this would still not justify the erosion of its attitude to mainstream Jews: as displayed by the simmering suspicion, contempt and downright hostility that its news releases on Garlasco and Bernstein suggest....

...If HRW cannot even muster the respect to properly answer its founding chairman when he raises a concern about incitement to genocide of Jews, then how can we possibly expect them to engage decently with any other Jewish concerns?

Real concerns articulated by the Jewish mainstream, or anyone sympathetic to the Jewish mainstream, is instinctively dismissed as "RW" and never honestly and thorougly addressed.

It's ugly.

And it cannot be defended.

[azurnoir]

20. Who represents the "Jewish Mainstream" ? n/t

[shira]

21. The original HRW founder, the ADL, AJC, and yes, even AIPAC with Obama's friend as new Prez

And as much as you may hate them...

Americans like Dershowitz, Koch, Barry Rubin and Elie Wiesel.

Israelis like Natan Sharansky to Shimon Perez, or Carlo Strenger to Ben Dror Yemini.

That mainstream includes both left AND right - centrists or those just left or right of center - but not Jews from either end of the very far extremes.

------------

Of course, if you view any Jew not as "Left" as Gideon Levy as a far right extremist, then the 'mainstream' is less than 2% of all Jews.

[azurnoir]

24. Wow you if nothing else predictable

if your claims are true then the next Presidential election will be "interesting"
but I see the Jewish mainstream seems to be anyone you agree with

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Rupert's got a lot to answer for...

I wouldn't mind so much if he didn't have a reputation for pressuring his editors to reflect his political views in many of his publications. That pressure seems to vary from direct intervention in the case of The Australian, to there being an air of compliance among his editorial staff, who tend to ask themselves 'What Would Rupert Think?' when they do their job, and if Rupert wouldn't like it, it tends not to get printed...

[Violet_Crumble]

10. The comment by the 'researcher' for NGO Monitor is worth reading...

Not content with the nonsense written by Foreman, the 'researcher' pops up with more complete nonsense. In response to it being pointed out that HRW published 20 reports on Kashmir, and not 4 as claimed, the 'researcher' responds with '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.' But the thing is that I just went and started adding up how many actual reports (excluding press releases) there were, and stopped counting after I got past ten. So, claiming that press releases shouldn't be included doesn't mean a thing as there's more than four reports that have been published and Foreman was incorrect...

Another thing I noticed while reading about NGO Monitors 'research' on press releases (I'd be interested to see this research and how it was carried out, as I've never heard anyone claim before that long and detailed reports are more likely to be noticed and remembered than short media releases). Assuming their 'research' is right, why is it then that when I went and read one of their many whiny reports on how much more attention Israel gets than other countries, NGO Monitor was including media releases in the documents they were counting? I would have thought a group that possesses research that shows that media releases are forgotten and shouldn't be counted alongside reports wouldn't have been turning round and including media releases with reports to up their numbers when it suits them...


on edit: being bored and home crook from work today, I did go searching on the NGO Monitor site for their research about reports vs media releases. I couldn't find anything so I popped over to their blog http://blog.ngo-monitor.org/other-ngos/human-rights-watch/hrws-corrections-create-more-confusion/#more-403

Not too sure if my questions will get published (they seem to moderate the posts) or if they'll try to answer them, so here's what I asked:




Hello. I've got a question about the following comment made by NGO Monitor:

'Reports indicate a major investment, while stand-alone press releases are quickly forgotten, as detailed in NGO Monitor research.'

Could you point me to the research that NGO Monitor carried out that shows that to be the case? It's just that it's unclear what 'major investment' means and I'm not sure why the criteria changes from 'major investment' to 'quickly forgotten' for media releases. Is your research based on financial cost of producing a report vs a media release, or is it based on what a user will remember for longer? Also, is this research based on experiences with the HRW website? If so, were users involved in the research, and if they were, how were they selected?

Thanks :)

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I still haven't had any response to the questions I asked about their methodology...

After seeing that they'd posted another entry on their blog and my comment still hadn't been put up by them, I emailed them my questions that I posted here. I'm not really surprised there hasn't been any answer at all, as I expect they're more used to firing off the questions than having their own 'work' scrutinised...

Anyway, because I do have a semi-professional interest in their claim, I'll keep everyone here posted on whether I get any answer from them or not...

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Update on the question I emailed to NGO Monitor..

There's been no reply at all, so as their claims to have research on reports vs media releases appears to be really dubious, I think it's safe to take the silence from NGO Monitor as saying 'research = what we decide we'd like people to think if we bothered to ask them'. Having encountered this attitude in real life about the value of Twitter as a tool for the organisation I work for, I prefer to call what NGO Monitor did *Doing A Carmel*...

[Violet_Crumble]

27. The "Swiftboating" of Human Rights Watch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=281663