Daniel Levy apologizes for HRW-UPDATED
Over at Huffington Post, Daniel Levy publishes a screed against screeds against Human Rights Watch.
HRW is under fire, essentially, because a senior staffer not only bashed Israel to fund-raise among Saudis, she invoked odious tropes about Jewish power in order to do so. Jeffrey Goldberg, who has done the best journalism on this, puts it most succinctly:
The director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council (which oversees, on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, the imposition in the Kingdom of the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law) in part by highlighting her organization's investigations of Israel, and its war with Israel's "supporters," who are liars and deceivers. It appears as if Human Rights Watch, in the pursuit of dollars, has compromised its integrity.
If anyone doubts that interpretation, listen to Ken Roth, HRW's executive director, fielding Goldberg's direct question, "Did your staff person attempt to raise funds in Saudi Arabia by advertising your organization's opposition to the pro-Israel lobby?"
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.
Elsewhere, Goldberg calls this "tacky." That's polite. The generalized and apriori smearing of any criticism as "lies and deception" and "lies and obfuscation" is worthy, I dunno, of the kind of stand up guy who runs Belarus.
Levy, whom I otherwise like and respect, skates over this by noting that -- and yes, it's true, I got the same emails Levy alludes to -- much of the criticism of HRW is fueled by a coalition of unhappy campers who will go to any lengths to delegitimate any criticism of Israel.
Much, but not all, and that does not get Sarah Leah Whitson, the HRW staffer who attended this suspect tea party, off the hook. I'm not sure how the refusal to brook legitimate criticism on one side justifies, well, a refusal to brook legitimate criticism on the other. And Whitson's willingness to slam the Saudis when there are no Saudis present doesn't make it better.
(Before I continue, let me get one other minor dig in at poor Daniel, who doesn't need me to complicate his life, but still: He calls Natan Sharansky a former refusenik. I met Daniel when he chaired the Wold Union of Jewish Students and he should know that Sharansky is more accurately described as a former prisoner of Zion.)
But, anyhoo, my further problem with HRW. Much of this has to do with transparency, a value one would think HRW would treasure. Not only that, but in his exchange with Goldberg, Roth kvetches that David Bernstein, the journalist who first brought this complaint, failed to check with him first.
JTA has covered, in the past, Human Rights First's work tracking hate crimes. One of my thousands of backburner projects has been to figure out why the two other major human rights watchdogs, Amnesty International and HRW, don't track such crimes.
There are a range of possible answers: Whom to hold accountable for such crimes, the lack of a uniform system for measuring the intensity of the crimes, the belief that government oppression poses a far greater threat than outburst of "freelance" crimes of bias, the perception among some on the left that the reporting of anti-Semitism hinders efforts to expose allegations of Israeli brutality.
Yes, the last supposition is the most explosive, but I'm not making it up -- it's out there. There's a perception, most notably peddled by the likes of Norman Finkelstein, that complaints of anti-Semitism deliberately obfuscate Israeli atrocities. Bias against Jews in the 21st century most routinely is manifested through hate crimes; That makes it legitimate to ask AI and HRW why they ignore the phenomenon.
I've tried. On two separate occasions, I've put repeated calls into both organizations for comment. Both times, I never got a response. Not a "we'd prefer not co comment," but, simply, no response, no call-back despite repeated calls.
Meaning no story. And no accountability.
HRW needs to cast a spotlight on its own practices.
UPDATE: Daniel wrote in with two fair points:
I still don't see that the main claim has been substantiated: namely, that Whitson was focusing her pitch around accusations of Israel-lobby activity and feeding stereotypes that exist in the Saudi Kingdom.
It's true that nothing suggests that this was the main thrust of Whitson's pitch. I didn't say it was, but because I have made it my focus, I should have been clear that it was not hers. I still think it is appalling that she raised the "lobby" at all.
His second point is also substantive:
I think there is a substantive debate here: namely, that the attacks on HRW over this issue are part of the world that HRW operates in, and are part of the reality of dealing with this issue -- and that atmosphere is not something HRW created, but rather something created by the right-wing, 'Israel can do no wrong' echo chamber. And I would argue that the blame resides primarily with them, and not with HRW.
It's true that groups like NGO Monitor started this fight through specious reporting -- Uri has dealt at greater length with NGO Monitor's tendencies to fudge, and God knows, those of us who cover this conflict spend way too much time keeping at bay the "change the subject" crowd. I think Daniel is right that this is the bigger picture, and he is right to remind us that it is the bigger picture.
But my point still stands: Other targets of HRW and other human rights groups respond not just with obfuscations, but with actual persecution of field workers. Would HRW fund-raise among white racists by trading in stereotypes of African brutality in describing its efforts in Zimbabwe? If Whitson raised funds among ultranationalists in Roman Catholic Zagreb by citing Russian government violations of human rights -- and then made a passing reference to the "threat" of Eastern Orthodox "hegemony" -- how long would she last?
Human rights monitoring in Zimbabwe and in Chechnya (to name just two places) involves risking one's life, not merely one's political reputation. Why is it only the latter risk that drives HRW to stereotyping?
11 Comments
Share This
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
My point is transparency and dealing with criticism; HRW seems about as adept at it as Israel’s government and some of its defenders. For an organization dedicated to scrutiny, HRW resists it mightily—something my past experience along with the current imbroglio bear out. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for HRW and AI not to track hate crimes, some of which I outlined; but we’ll never know, since they steadfastly refuse to address the issue.
I address two of Daniel’s major points; he says this is all about deflecting Israel criticism; that may be part of it, but that doesn’t mean HRW shouldn’t answer for Whitson’s appalling conduct; and he says Whitson has sharply criticized Saudi Arabia in other contexts; fine, but it’s beside the point in this matter.
I link to Goldberg because that’s what bloggers do when other bloggers make a point worth repeating.
Thanks for your cordial response.
Well, I agree with you that folks should return calls.
But I wouldn’t put that in the category of no transparency or no accountability. Frankly, Ken Roth spends a lot of his time answering criticisms, as his email exchanges with Goldberg and NGO Monitor’s Gerald Steinberg show. (I once spent an hour going through the back and forth emails that Gerald posted on his site.) I think HRW should hire somebody just to deal with that business.
I wasn’t questioning the practice of linking to blogs; I was simply wondering why you spent more time in repeating Goldberg on HRW than dealing with Daniel Levy on HRW. By the way, Levy links to a whole bunch of bloggers who have “apologized for” HRW.
From all the hype from the neocons and liberal hawks, you would think that HRW is obsessed with Israel. And yet if you go to the HRW website, it is hard to even find Israel, even in the Middle East section. So even if Whiston went to Saudi Arabia and begged for money to publicize the crimes of the Zionist entity (which she didn’t), it doesn’t seem that it makes much difference when it comes to the integrity of its reporting. Were I a Saudi anti-Zionist, I would invest my money elsewhere.
As an Israeli Jew, I wish that HRW would focus more on Israel’s sins—but apparently, money can’t buy coverage with those guys.
Having followed Jeffrey Goldberg’s attacks on HRW on his site and having just read Daniel Levy’s response on Huffington Post which I read as anything but an apology, I agree with Jeremiah Haber that it would have been better had you responded to Levy’s comments rather than regurgitating those of Goldberg. You can still do it since apparently with Gerald Steinberg and NGO Watch, the attempt to destroy HRW is not going away soon.
As for reporting on individual hate crimes which occur every day around the world and which go largely unreported, that has never been the focus of either HRW or Amnesty and it is unreasonable to both ask them to do it and to use that as another reason to attack them when they have the temerity to criticize Israel’s actions.
Ron,
While I admire your work a great deal, to call Jeffrey Golberg’s reporting on the latest flap with HRW “the best journalism on this” does not inspire confidence. Leaving alone that I think I did one of the best reported pieces on the subject, Goldberg’s piece was both hit and miss, veering into tendentious reporting.
Goldberg makes a valid point about promoting reports about Israel to Arab audiences to raise money (which HRW said was among other work that they promoted, also noting that Arabs, indeed, have a regional interest in Israel). But his cordial e-mail exchange with Roth did NOT contain an admission that HRW fundraised from Saudi officials - which Goldberg trumpeted as fact in the paragraph you cite. If you read the e-mails as published by Goldberg, it is clear that Roth only admits that officials were present - not solicited for money.
Is that the “best journalism”?
Best,
Ali Gharib
HRW is ignoring a major source of funding if it concentrates solely on the Saudis. Imagine the impact if HRW traveled to Iran and certified the results of the recent election. The Basijis would be most grateful and probably divert a little cash that had been earmarked for Hezbollah to HRW
The inept HRW cover-up is Nixonesque. For years,Ken Roth’s Middle East division—headed by Whitson, Joe Stork (ex-MERIP) and assorted graduates of Electronic Intifada, etc.—have been able to partake in gratuitous Israel-bashing under the human rights banner. The (mostly American) Jewish Left has ignored the double standards and pseudo-research, as in “we saw no examples of the use of human shields by Hamas/Hewzbollah”, or the 2002 claim that Arafat was not directing terror attacks. But the changing versions, stammering responses, and “enemies list” response (NGO Monitor correctly on the top) to being caught in the Saudi caper has changed all this. (Daniel Levy excepted—he’s one of the plumbers—see Watergate metaphor.) Bob Bernstein, who founded Helsinki Watch in 1978, and is still listed as Founding Chair Emeritus on the HRW website, is known to have major issues with Roth and Whitson, and not only over HRW’s use of Israel as the main course for the Saudi dinner. This is not another overwrought Left/Right/Israel issue —it is an opportunity to restore the moral foundations of human rights.
Gerald M. Steinberg, Exec. Dir, NGO Monitor (Watching the Watchers)
I am with ari, pay compensation to the Arabs to leave Israel, and I do mean Gaza and the West Bank as well. Then they can go to whatever land they wish. This will stop the violence. Jews need a homeland, as they have suffered discrimination in every land they settled in. In contrast, Arabs have 22 states , and refuse to settle their brethren. Why? Their honor and determination to annihilate Israel.
Also, why do Arab never mention the650,000 Jews expelled from Arab land? Myopic vision to say the least.
“ I still think it is appalling that she raised the “lobby” at all.
Yes, first rule of Fight Club is don’t talk about Fight Club.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Jeremiah Haber
07/21/09 12:13 PM
Ron,
Two points for the archaic use of “apologizes for” in the title.
But aside from that, what did the post have to do with Daniel’s “screed” as you call it. (Daniel called Goldberg’s piece “thoughtful”—is that what you meant by “screed”?)
You didn’t refute any of Levy’s arguments because you didn’t cite any. In fact, the first half rehashes Goldberg (what, is his site-traffic down?), the second half takes up your hate-crime question. Now, hate-crimes is a serious issue, to be sure, but isn’t it a little silly to blame a group for not tracking hate crimes if it doesn’t see it as part of its mission? And hate-crimes is not as obvious a human rights issue as the things that HRW and Amnesty International cover, is it?
But...it seems that you are not really interested in tracking hate crimes, as much as you are interested in tracking anti-semitism. It’s as if you are saying to yourself, “Damn, the Jews’ human rights aren’t violated that much, so we are not invited to the HRW party. But if they could only include hate-crimes, that sure would balance criticism of Israel.”
Or did I misunderstand the screed?