Too smart, too nuanced or too generous and sympathetic by a half.

I'm all for appreciable and suitably (i.e. where truly warranted) nuanced comprehensions. I'm all in favor of apperceptions and depth where more surface level perceptions are inadequate.

But Bernstein does not built a persuasive case imo. E.g., pro forma condemnations are a dime a dozen among decided and far leftists - "The People's Democratic Republic of ..." reflects merely one well known titular and pro forma conceit such apologetics can point to in order to convey a sense of nuance and subtlety or in order to convey a wholesale apologetic and approval.

Whether motivated out of a spirit of generosity on a moral and intellectual plane or out of other considerations, I don't find Bernstein's argument persuasive. In fact, I find it entirely unpersuasive, too smart or too generous or too nuanced, by a half. I continue to find Ben Dror Yemeni far more persuasive, far more probative, in general reflective of an ability and a willingness to plumb to requisite depths.

I'm open to a more cogent and more persuasive argument, but do not see that argument in Bernstein's material.

Joe Stork, btw, is free to update/clarify his position(s). Likewise, he's free to allow his past statements/commitments to stand as is, uncommented upon. Or perhaps he's the shy and retiring type ...

Indeed the issue is not Joe Stork, although he has been the partial focus of a recent series of unfounded attacks on Human Rights Watch by the Israeli government and a number of its uncritical supporters. Instead of addressing the serious allegations of human rights abuses by Israel, the writers seem interested only in deflecting attention to the messenger.

Among these was a story, by Ben-Dror Yemini in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv, titled “Author of Report against Israel Supported Munich Massacre” which originated the false allegation regarding the Munch massacre. That article contained numerous other factual errors, and Human Rights Watch on August 18 responded with a letter to the editor at Ma’ariv, reprinted below, to set the record straight:

To the Editor:

The Israeli government and Ben-Dror Yemini [“Author of Report against Israel Supported Munich Massacre”] seem to share a “shoot the messenger” approach when it comes to addressing painstakingly researched criticisms of the Israel Defense Forces’ actions in Gaza. Instead of addressing these detailed findings, they spread malicious misinformation about me and my organization, Human Rights Watch.

On August 13, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing instances in January in which Israeli soldiers killed Palestinian civilians who were waving white flags to convey their civilian status. Government spokespersons sought to dismiss the report by calling Human Rights Watch biased. But to date no critic has disputed the facts about the seven incidents in the report, in which soldiers shot and killed 11 unarmed civilians, including four children and five women.

Now, again instead of addressing our research, Mr. Yemini has launched a personal attack on me, which the Israeli government has dutifully translated and distributed. The quotes he attributes to me are more than 30 years old. Most of them I do not recognize, and they are contrary to the views I have expounded for decades now. For instance, selective excerpts about the Munich massacre come from an unsigned editorial that appeared 37 years ago where at the time I was one of seven volunteers that produced the publication. All my work since then shows that I would never support such an attack.

For nearly 40 years, I have been documenting, writing, and speaking out on injustices by virtually all of the governments and many non-state armed groups in the Middle East. This work is readily available – including at Middle East Report magazine, which I edited through 1995, and at Human Rights Watch since then – but Mr. Yemini did not include these many statements, undoubtedly because they did not support his claims. Had he looked at the hundreds of statements, articles and reports I’ve written since the 1970s, he would have found exposés of Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime and my report for Human Rights Watch on war crimes by Palestinian suicide bombers. I have dedicated much of my adult life to the protection of human rights for all and to fighting the idea that civilians can be attacked for political reasons. Maariv and Mr. Yemini owe me an apology.

Joe Stork
Deputy Director, Middle East and North Africa Division
Human Rights Watch

I'd like to ask Mr. Stork and HRW, what about the allegations that Hamas and other organizations deliberately blend into civilian populations, using them both as a disguise and a shield?

In fact the whole issue of urban/guerilla warfare depends in part upon the use/misuse of the surrounding civilian population.

P.R. for the group's agenda often involves the bloody death of civilians, which is then dutifully published in the press and blamed on countries like Israel, which are then willy-nilly accused of war crimes and/or "imperialism".

Finally, I'd like to ask about the Saudi money and how, given past and recent Saudi behavior toward Jews and Israel, HRW can remain objective while essentially being on the payroll of a state that's had a boycott against the Yishuv and subsequently Israel since the 1930's, and which has just refused Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the slightest degree of symbolic warming toward Israel?

Note: I'm writing as a person who thought Cast Lead was a bad idea and who would have handled Gaza differently had I been in power. I'm not an uncritical supporter of Israel. I think Palestinian lives are valuable.

But when it comes to NGO objectivity toward Israel I have serious doubts. This is especially true when Israel and other states are per se damned by some NGO's as "imperialist" and therefore evil per se. Other NGO's target Israel on religious grounds.

It's impossible not to see that Israel in particular is singled out for abuse. I think that's a human rights violation on the face of it.