Human Rights Watch (HRW), which boasts about reporting abuses “in all corners of the world,” should rise above always picking one side in a conflict. But it doesn’t.Critics have lamented for years the nongovernmental organization (NGO) established to 'protect' vulnerable civilians in wartime and refugees and children in need, has been highjacked by fanatics that overpower the noble voices of experts, including lawyers and journalists, who work there.Like Amnesty International, HRW’s has long been criticized for being rife with antisemitism that has eaten away at its credibility. HRW takes it a step further with its soft stance on terrorists and a hard assessment of world democracies.“We partner with organizations large and small across the globe to protect embattled activists and to help hold abusers to account and bring justice to victims,” declares HRW on its website.But HRW has a skewed sense of who should be held accountable, according to an insider who recently walked away.An HRW former editor highlighted HRW’s bias by denouncing its “unbalanced” coverage of the Israeli-Hamas conflict — that continued even after Hamas terrorist savages butchered 1,400 civilians.Raped, executed, dismembered, burned alive — including putting a baby in an oven — an unfathomable atrocity I’ve declined to write about until being sure it was committed.Danielle Haas, who worked at HRW 13 years, slammed the NGO’s agenda, and said it must ask itself if it is “playing a responsible role” at so “toxic” a time.Indeed, slanted coverage is fuelling the massive worldwide protests.Haas covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for years before that, as a journalist with the Associated Press and Reuters.“Following the Hamas massacres in Israel on October 7, years of institutional creep culminated in organizational responses that shattered professionalism, abandoned principles of accuracy and fairness and surrendered its duty to stand for the human rights of all,” wrote Haas in a farewell email to her staff leaked to the Times of Israel.“HRW's initial reactions to the Hamas attacks failed to condemn outright the murder, torture and kidnapping of Israeli men, women and children. They included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’ before blood was even dry on bedroom walls,” wrote Haas.“These responses were not, as some have since characterized it internally, a messaging misstep in the tumult after the Hamas assault. It was not the failure of a few to follow robust internal mechanisms of editing and quality control, as others have claimed,” wrote Haas.HRW has, only on occasion, has tepidly criticized Hamas terrorists that have targeted Israeli citizens with a vengeance over the years. Instead, HRW has heavily pronounced Israel guilty of human rights abuses, even in cases of self-defence.Haas, who is Jewish, maintained that “focus on and criticism of Israeli policies and actions is valid for a human rights organization.”But she said HRW’s slanted stand favouring Palestinians and Hamas is established and “did not happen in a vacuum.”“Rather, HRW’s initial response (to October 7) was the fruition of years of politicization of its Israel-Palestine work that has frequently violated basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance and collegiality when it comes to Israel.”“It was the expression of years of select historical and political framing that could always contextualize and ‘explain’ why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence.”Haas said “some voices” at HRW drown out and push others into silent submission.“No organization should be above engaging in self-critique right now,” said Haas, explaining why she wrote the email.“I’m sending a final email before leaving HRW. I’m hopeful, but wary, that an organization with a mission to Expose. Investigate. Change. can do just that when it comes to its own practices regarding its Israel work, with authenticity and without retaliation,” she wrote.“But what I know from over 13 years in the HRW annual global review of human rights the Israel-Palestine chapter has always been longer than those of rights-abusing goliaths such as Iran and North Korea.”“Internal fora nominally dedicated to both Israel and Palestine were, in practice, mostly dedicated to expressions of outrage over Israeli abuses and their consequences, both real and speculated.”“HRW has so little credibility for most Israelis they do not even trust it with their corpses,” she wrote.“Zaka, the emergency responder group that collected body parts after the Hamas massacres, said it did not want to talk to HRW because its members did not have faith the organization would not misuse and distort their eyewitness accounts of the carnage they had seen.”HRW told staff it was “proud” of its response to the crisis, she said.But an early press release was written in a way that could be interpreted as “blaming the victim.”“The unlawful attacks and systematic repression that have mired the region for decades will continue, so long as human rights and accountability are disregarded,” said HRW.“A piece on Israeli attacks on Gaza being devastating for Palestinians with disabilities that failed to mention the devastating impact of Hamas’ attacks on Israelis with disabilities,” said Hass.“They included those murdered on October 7, among them a 17-year-old girl with muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy killed at a music festival; those who are now disabled because of the attacks and Israeli hostages with pre-existing health conditions ranging from heart problems to diabetes.”Hamas terrorists captured about 240 hostages.Hamas figures on deaths resulting from Israeli bombing are met with scepticism worldwide.But the Washington Post quoted Adam Taylor, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch Omar Shakir, defending Hamas data.“Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable.” Like the 500 that didn’t die in a bombing that didn’t happen? Hamas claimed an Israel bomb destroyed a hospital, when in fact a misfired terrorist bomb hit the parking lot.In a statement to the Times of Israel, HRW defended its reporting on the conflict.“We apply the same standards of rigor and dedication to our work on Israel-Palestine as we do to other conflict areas, working to protect all civilians in conflict zones and bringing to account those who violate international humanitarian law.”Well, the evidence seems to prove otherwise.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), which boasts about reporting abuses “in all corners of the world,” should rise above always picking one side in a conflict. But it doesn’t.Critics have lamented for years the nongovernmental organization (NGO) established to 'protect' vulnerable civilians in wartime and refugees and children in need, has been highjacked by fanatics that overpower the noble voices of experts, including lawyers and journalists, who work there.Like Amnesty International, HRW’s has long been criticized for being rife with antisemitism that has eaten away at its credibility. HRW takes it a step further with its soft stance on terrorists and a hard assessment of world democracies.“We partner with organizations large and small across the globe to protect embattled activists and to help hold abusers to account and bring justice to victims,” declares HRW on its website.But HRW has a skewed sense of who should be held accountable, according to an insider who recently walked away.An HRW former editor highlighted HRW’s bias by denouncing its “unbalanced” coverage of the Israeli-Hamas conflict — that continued even after Hamas terrorist savages butchered 1,400 civilians.Raped, executed, dismembered, burned alive — including putting a baby in an oven — an unfathomable atrocity I’ve declined to write about until being sure it was committed.Danielle Haas, who worked at HRW 13 years, slammed the NGO’s agenda, and said it must ask itself if it is “playing a responsible role” at so “toxic” a time.Indeed, slanted coverage is fuelling the massive worldwide protests.Haas covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for years before that, as a journalist with the Associated Press and Reuters.“Following the Hamas massacres in Israel on October 7, years of institutional creep culminated in organizational responses that shattered professionalism, abandoned principles of accuracy and fairness and surrendered its duty to stand for the human rights of all,” wrote Haas in a farewell email to her staff leaked to the Times of Israel.“HRW's initial reactions to the Hamas attacks failed to condemn outright the murder, torture and kidnapping of Israeli men, women and children. They included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’ before blood was even dry on bedroom walls,” wrote Haas.“These responses were not, as some have since characterized it internally, a messaging misstep in the tumult after the Hamas assault. It was not the failure of a few to follow robust internal mechanisms of editing and quality control, as others have claimed,” wrote Haas.HRW has, only on occasion, has tepidly criticized Hamas terrorists that have targeted Israeli citizens with a vengeance over the years. Instead, HRW has heavily pronounced Israel guilty of human rights abuses, even in cases of self-defence.Haas, who is Jewish, maintained that “focus on and criticism of Israeli policies and actions is valid for a human rights organization.”But she said HRW’s slanted stand favouring Palestinians and Hamas is established and “did not happen in a vacuum.”“Rather, HRW’s initial response (to October 7) was the fruition of years of politicization of its Israel-Palestine work that has frequently violated basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance and collegiality when it comes to Israel.”“It was the expression of years of select historical and political framing that could always contextualize and ‘explain’ why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence.”Haas said “some voices” at HRW drown out and push others into silent submission.“No organization should be above engaging in self-critique right now,” said Haas, explaining why she wrote the email.“I’m sending a final email before leaving HRW. I’m hopeful, but wary, that an organization with a mission to Expose. Investigate. Change. can do just that when it comes to its own practices regarding its Israel work, with authenticity and without retaliation,” she wrote.“But what I know from over 13 years in the HRW annual global review of human rights the Israel-Palestine chapter has always been longer than those of rights-abusing goliaths such as Iran and North Korea.”“Internal fora nominally dedicated to both Israel and Palestine were, in practice, mostly dedicated to expressions of outrage over Israeli abuses and their consequences, both real and speculated.”“HRW has so little credibility for most Israelis they do not even trust it with their corpses,” she wrote.“Zaka, the emergency responder group that collected body parts after the Hamas massacres, said it did not want to talk to HRW because its members did not have faith the organization would not misuse and distort their eyewitness accounts of the carnage they had seen.”HRW told staff it was “proud” of its response to the crisis, she said.But an early press release was written in a way that could be interpreted as “blaming the victim.”“The unlawful attacks and systematic repression that have mired the region for decades will continue, so long as human rights and accountability are disregarded,” said HRW.“A piece on Israeli attacks on Gaza being devastating for Palestinians with disabilities that failed to mention the devastating impact of Hamas’ attacks on Israelis with disabilities,” said Hass.“They included those murdered on October 7, among them a 17-year-old girl with muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy killed at a music festival; those who are now disabled because of the attacks and Israeli hostages with pre-existing health conditions ranging from heart problems to diabetes.”Hamas terrorists captured about 240 hostages.Hamas figures on deaths resulting from Israeli bombing are met with scepticism worldwide.But the Washington Post quoted Adam Taylor, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch Omar Shakir, defending Hamas data.“Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable.” Like the 500 that didn’t die in a bombing that didn’t happen? Hamas claimed an Israel bomb destroyed a hospital, when in fact a misfired terrorist bomb hit the parking lot.In a statement to the Times of Israel, HRW defended its reporting on the conflict.“We apply the same standards of rigor and dedication to our work on Israel-Palestine as we do to other conflict areas, working to protect all civilians in conflict zones and bringing to account those who violate international humanitarian law.”Well, the evidence seems to prove otherwise.
