Landmark moment in debate about NGO bias over Israel after sensational revelations are published about Human Rights Watch
The charge that major non-governmental organisations have a reflexively anti-Israel bias is not one that should be levelled lightly. I was once a member of Amnesty International and remember being proud of the work they did around the world to highlight human rights abuses. Amnesty and other groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) have only one weapon at their disposal: the weapon of publicity. And they only have one claim to be taken seriously: that they are meticulous in protecting their reputation for impartiality. As a journalist I cited studies from both organisations, particularly while working in Russia and reporting on Chechnya. It always gave a story credibility. If HRW or Amnesty produced a report both journalist and reader would assume it to be true.
It is all the more tragic, therefore, that both organisations now stand accused of jumping on the anti-Israeli bandwagon and of issuing statements and reports which cast doubt on their objectivity. The latest revelations — almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media — about HRW in particular make for depressing reading.
The story concerns a recent visit by a delegation from HRW to Saudi Arabia. The delegation was headed by the group’s senior Middle East officer Sarah Leah Whitson. The central charge is that the delegation sought to raise funds from prominent Saudis — one a member of the Shura Council, Saudia Arabia’s state sanctioned religious leadership organisation — by highlighting HRW’s ongoing battles with pro-Israel groups.
The charge is a serious one. If true, it would mean that HRW has been using its antagonistic position towards Israel as a marketing and fundraising tool, and doing so in a country where fanatical hatred of Israel (and the Jews in general) is a central feature of the political and religious culture. If true it would provide hard evidence that HRW sees financial gain to be made from the battle with Israel’s supporters. If true it would allow supporters of Israel to say, with substantial justification, that the instincts of HRW over the Middle East cannot be trusted. If true, it would mean that reasonable people could say in all honesty that HRW has indeed joined the anti-Israeli bandwagon.
The key question, then, is this: is the allegation true?
The best evidence so far provided came in a sober and carefully written article by Jeffrey Goldberg published on July 15 (see link below) in the Atlantic . The tone of his writing adds credence to his judgements:
“I’m not one of the people who believes that Human Rights Watch is reflexively anti-Israel,” he says, “and I think the group has done admirable work exposing Israel’s human rights violations (and admirable work, of course, exposing human rights violations across the Middle East).”
But it is not just Goldberg’s tone that makes his article so valuable. He has done what any serious investigator would do under the circumstances: he has gone to HRW, asked its director — Ken Roth — to clarify the situation, and published his words.
During a lengthy email exchange Roth appeared to be attempting to evade the key question. Finally, Goldberg pinned him down by asking him to specifically address the allegation that a senior HRW staffer had tried to raise funds in Saudi Arabia by advertising HRW’s battles with the Israel lobby. Here is what the executive director of Human Rights Watch said in response:
“That’s certainly part of the story. We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception. It wasn’t a pitch against the Israel lobby per se. Our standard spiel is to describe our work in the region. Telling the Israel story–part of that pitch–is in part telling about the lies and obfuscation that are inevitably thrown our way.”
The response is devastating. Roth is admitting that the allegation is indeed true. Just as damning is the language he uses to justify himself. The emotive vocabulary about Israel’s supporters — “lies and deception” and “lies and obfuscation” — clearly suggests that HRW sees itself as standing on one side of the barricades. The supporters of Israel are posited as enemies in a fight: there are Israel’s supporters on one side, and there is HRW on the other.
Unless Goldberg is making this up or ripping the quotation badly out of its proper context — an unlikely eventuality since he or Roth could easily publish the emails in their entirety complete with dates and timelines — it is difficult to see how HRW’s reputation for impartiality in the Middle East could ever recover.
It is also an immensely important moment in the great debate about whether prominent rights groups really do have an agenda against Israel and its supporters, or whether the very suggestion is mere paranoia. The matter cannot be allowed to rest. We now need other journalists to investigate this matter further and to corroborate or dismiss the evidence that Goldberg has provided.
To read the full article, click here:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/fundraising_corruption_at_huma.php
July 20th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Yes it does look like HRW has come out in its true colours. Amnesty, War on Want and the rest don’t seem to try very hard any more to suppress their bias against Israel.
Is it to cynical to see anti-semitism creeping back into the mainstream of British and Western society under the guise of anti-zionism? Eastern Europe never did try to suppress anti-semitism even when jews had been all but eradicated from there. It had been hoped that the West was on a better course after WWII.
It is however particularly depressing that sympathy for Palestinians has led otherwise intelligent people and worthy organisations to take such partisan positions in such a complicated conflict. And this when the West and western oriented societies are facing islamist terror on every continent.
The blinkered British(until Obama the main focus of anti-Israel endeavours) are attacking and undermining that outpost of western civilisation which is the West’s natural ally. The only dependable ally in that part of the world. That the Palestinians do not have a state is their own fault, due to their endemic corruption, infighting and extremism in refusing an accommodation with Israel that does not end with the dissolution of the jewish state.
That the middle-east is in ferment has not so much to do with Israel but rather with radical islam whether wahabi or shiite. The radicalisation emerges out of Saudi and Iran and for years has aimed at outposts of Western culture, infiltrating from Indonesia to Pakistan and Bosnia.
The West seems to be bending over backwards to weaken Israel ever more as the islamist threat to the west increases in scope and threat.
The decadent West collaborates with those primitive zealots who wish to destroy a civilisation that took two thousand years to build. The West surely does not deserve to survive the islamist onslaught against it. But Israel refuses to go down without a fight. I do not believe Israel will go down unless the west refuses to wake up to the threat and pulls Israel down with it.
Whilst reporters like Bowen and McGreal and the myriad others spread their venom, people like yourself Robin represent a beacon. It may be ‘the lights are going out all over Europe’ but at least you will be able to say you were an independent and honourable voice, refusing to join the crowd. Keep up the good work.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Hello, Superb blog post, really well compiled.
August 9th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I just discovered your blog and am grateful to see such a respected voice speak out in Britain. Thank you for doing what you’re doing.