Daniel Levy apologizes for HRW-UPDATED http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/daniel-levy-apologizes-for-hrw/ Over at Huffington Post, Daniel Levy publishes a screed against screeds against Human Rights Watch. en-us rkampeas@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-07-21T;19:00:00-05:00 Comment by LanceThruster lancethruster@atheistnetwork.net “ 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. “ 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.

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Kerry Winn kerrywinn@earthlink.net 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 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.

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by "NGO Monitor - Gerald Steinberg" gerald.steinberg@gmail.com 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) 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)

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Herbert Kaine herbertkaine@hotmail.com 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 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

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Ali Gharib ali.gharib@gmail.com 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 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

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Jeffrey Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net 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. 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.

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Gary Katz garybkatz@comcast.net Maybe their workers think HRW means “Hebrew Repression Watch.” Maybe their workers think HRW means “Hebrew Repression Watch.”

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Jeremiah Haber jeremiah.haber@gmail.com 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. 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.

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Ron Kampeas rkampeas@jta.org 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. 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.

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00 Comment by Jeremiah Haber jeremiah.haber@gmail.com 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? 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?

]]> 2012-02-10T;00:53:00-05:00