Amazon.com Widgets

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Human Rights Watch is a bit worse than AWOL in its war against Israel's right to defend itself from terrorism (see previous: Video: Hamas Terrorist Hides Behind White Flag: Human Rights Watch AWOL). The personnel they've assigned to investigating Israeli "crimes" demonstrate quite clearly they are simply on the other side. Ben-Dror Yemini has another invaluable contribution in Maariv (in Hebrew, here), and here is the English translation in full. You won't believe how callous HRW has become with their reputation:

AUTHOR OF REPORT AGAINST ISRAEL SUPPORTED MUNICH MASSACRE

(Article by Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma'ariv, 16.8.09, p. 13)

Joe Stork, a senior official in Human Rights Watch, which accuses the IDF of killing Palestinians who waved white flags, is a fanatical supporter of the elimination of Israel. He was a friend of Saddam, ruled out negotiations and supported the Munich Massacre, which "provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians."

Last Thursday, many world media outlets covered the press conference in which a senior Human Rights Watch official, Joe Stork, presented the report accusing Israel of killing twelve Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who waved white flags during Operation Cast Lead. Stork, the person identified with the report, has a unique history of Israel-hating: He supported the murder of Israeli athletes in Munich, was an avid supporter of Saddam Hussein and more.

Several times in the past, Stork has called for the destruction of Israel and is a veteran supporter of Palestinian terrorism. Already as a student, Stork was amongst the founders of a new radical leftist group, which was formed based on the claim that other leftist groups were not sufficiently critical of Israel and of the United States' support of it. Already in 1976, Stork participated in a conference organized by Saddam Hussein which celebrated the first anniversary of the UN decision that equated Zionism with racism. Stork, needless to say, arrived at the conference as a prominent supporter of Palestinian terrorism and as an opponent to the existence of the State of Israel. He also labeled Palestinian violence against Israel as "revolutionary potential of the Palestinian masses" - language that was typical of fanatical Marxists.

In articles which he authored during the 1970's, Stork stated that he was against the very existence of Israel as an "imperialistic entity" and, to this end, provided counsel to Arab regimes on how to eliminate the Zionist regime. He also was opposed to any negotiations since this meant recognizing its existence: "Zionism may be defeated only by fighting imperialism," wrote Stork, "and not through deals with Kissingers."

On other occasions, Stork expressed his position that the global Left must subordinate itself to the PLO in order to strengthen elements that opposed any accord with Israel. It would seem that he has not changed his ways since then. He is still conceptually subordinate to those who have maintained their opposition to the existence of the State of Israel. Once the world's radical left supported the PLO. Today, part of the global Left supports Hamas.

Stork, of course, is not alone. The hate ships that arrive from time to time, or attempt to arrive, to the shores of Gaza, are full of radicals of his ilk. They do not identify with efforts towards compromise or peace. On the contrary, they identify with those who are continuing the old line that supports the elimination of Israel. And what would happen if the PLO should decide to enter the negotiations track? Stork already recommended years ago that the Palestinian left splinter in order to continue the resistance. Hamas obeyed. It is possible to guess where Stork's heart lays.

Where does Stork stand regarding matters of objectivity and neutrality? He criticized Professor Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, himself a PLO figure, because he edited an anthology which tried, at least seemingly, to produce a balanced presentation. "Academic neutrality is deceitful," wrote Stork. And what about factual accuracy? Stork claimed that Menachem Begin said that, "The Palestinians are two-legged animals." In fact, Begin said that those who come to kill children are "two-legged animals." The difference is, of course, huge. Stork, time after time, justifies his high standing in the industry of hate and lies against Israel.

Stork reached his peak in a statement published by the Middle East Research and Information Project, which dealt with gathering information on the Middle East conflict, and in which Stork was a leading figure. This was a statement that included explicit support for the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics: "Munich and similar actions cannot create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement," the statement said, "But we should comprehend the achievement of the Munich action...It has provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians in the camps." Murder and terrorism, if so, are a matter of morale.

This is the man. A radical Marxist whose positions have not changed over the years. On the contrary. Objectivity, neutrality or sticking to the facts are not Stork's strong suit. He even proudly exclaims that there is no need for neutrality.

Is it possible to relate seriously to a report against Israel which this man stands behind? Both CAMERA and Professor Gerald Steinberg have revealed worrying data on the leaders of Human Rights Watch and on the two people who head its Middle East Department -- Sarah Leah Whitson and Joe Stork -- even before its latest report and unconnected to it. The organization, as part of its false presentation, issued polite condemnations of Hamas rocket fire. But it seems that such blatant anti-Israel bias leaves room for doubt. A Stork produced report on Israel is about as objective as a report by Baruch Marzel on Hebron.

Israel is called upon to provide explanations in the wake of Human Rights Watch reports. It is about time that Israel publicly exposed the ideological roots of several of this organization's leaders and demands the dismissal of these supporters of terrorism and haters of Israel. Until then, Israel, justifiably, cannot seriously comment on criticism from such a body.

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ben-Dror Yemini: Joe Stork, Author Of Human Rights Watch Report Against Israel Supported Munich Massacre.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/16725

» Unfair to Joe Stork? at the blog Solomonia

David Bernstein thinks people have been a bit unfair to Human Rights Watch's Joe Stork, or, if not unfair, at least imprecise: Defending Joe Stork (A Little). Bernstein thinks that Stork, for all his faults (and they are many), cannot... Read More

Here is Ben-Dror Yemini's follow-up to his widely read article about Human Rights Watch's Joe Stork in full (I have made a number of very minor typographical edits): CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY Ben-Dror Yemini, Maariv, 21.8.09 HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS BEC... Read More

9 Comments

Yet again Ben-Dror Yemini hits the nail right on the head. HRW is not an impartial orgenization.

Thanks for the English translaition. It is very had to find fact based arguments for Israel's case in English. I use Yemini's articles extensively to argue Israel's points.

I originally found your blog while looking for English versions of yemini's work.

Keep them comming.

Now how to get these facts shoved in the face of the MSM that uses HRW to harass Israel.

Rather amazing. Or, it would be amazing if it were any other environment that the political/ideological, NGO/media and/or anti-Israel environment.

Ben-Dror Yemini, btw, is one of those consistently even-handed, thoughtful, guileless and probative reporters/writers. Pro-Israel, yes, but having read a dozen or more of his pieces, here and elsewhere, he has been an unfailing redoubt in that vein. Always and consistently refreshing, certainly so by my own experience.

Worst of all maybe is the fact that HRW gets money from Saudi Arabia, then is supposedly objective when it comes to commentary on Israeli/Arab affairs.

This makes absolutely no sense.

It's a double shame because human rights are sorely in need of defending. HRW has done some valuable work, and in fact they have condemned Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists - but somehow the Israeli reaction to terror always gets more attention than the initial violence.

Also there's a skewed perspective on the conflict itself. For some reason it is deemed vital to "solve" it whilst a) ignoring the root cause of the problem, which the JP article about "The Power of Truth" states succintly - the refusal of the Arab world to accept Israel at all - and b) spending a lot of time, money and effort to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict while simulaneously ignoring the horrific violence and suppression of human rights throughout the rest of the world.

Amazingly this includes the murders and displacements and the repression of literally millions of people - many of whom live in the Arab League.

So go figure.


As an Israeli I must tell you that Ben-Dror Yemini is the most important columnist in Israel this days, and more than that, he is a researcher and the best lecturer about the middle-east conflict. His work should be published in NYT, but unfortunately, they publish low-level Israelies.

Hehe, Joe Stork responded to that... and Ben-Dror Yemini has responded to the response... Man, I love the guy.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AWXYV56qlacKZGdwYzRoYzlfMTMzaG5mamJ3Y2o&hl=en


I personally think it's about darn time someone took the time to discredit HRW. It has been going about spreading hate for too long

As a former reporter in Israel, reporting mainly from the Palestinian side for liberal media, I can tell you that criticising Israel is the easiest and most rewarding work. You leave your comfy hotel in Jerusalem at ten, get a ride with an Arab driver who is also a translator and guide and within less than an hour you arrive on location in the "field". Everything is set up for you by your Palestinian hosts: interviewees, photos, background, contacts, lunch. At four pm you're back at the hotel with a 2,000-word article. A few calls to Israeli spokespeople for token reactions and you're done. Then you have the whole night to enjoy in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. You will not write against your Palestinian hosts; not delve too much into details or contradictions. They assist you as long as you're sympathetic. It is virtually impossible to come up with a story without their assistance. I suppose this is also the routine for human rights researchers.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]