Israel Matzav

Another Human Rights Watch apologist

The Los Angeles Times today publishes yet another op-ed by yet another Human Rights Watch apologist, one Rosa Brooks, who is an attorney, as seems to be the case with many other Human Rights Watch apologists.

Ms. Brooks cries for poor Ken Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, who, according to Brooks, made himself a pariah by criticizing Israel:

Publish something sharply critical of Israeli government policies and you'll find out. If you're lucky, you'll merely discover that you've been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you're less lucky, you'll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.

This, at least, is what happened to Ken Roth. Roth — whose father fled Nazi Germany — is executive director of Human Rights Watch, America's largest and most respected human rights organization. (Disclosure: I have worked in the past as a paid consultant for the group.) In July, after the Israeli offensive in Lebanon began, Human Rights Watch did the same thing it has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Congo, Uganda and countless other conflict zones around the globe: It sent researchers to monitor the conflict and report on any abuses committed by either side.

Full stop. The fact that Roth's father escaped from Nazi Germany - which is something that Wednesday's apologist also took the trouble to tell us - does not give Roth a license to turn the Middle East's only democracy into its largest human rights violator. Moreover, the inordinate amount of attention given to Israel, as compared with Sudan for example (which doesn't even appear on Brooks' list!) in itself shows a bias against Israel which defies rhyme or reason.

But Roth and Human Rights Watch didn't stop there. As the conflict's death toll spiraled — with most of the casualties Lebanese civilians — Human Rights Watch also criticized Israel for indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Roth noted that the Israeli military appeared to be "treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone," and he observed that the failure to take appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants constitutes a war crime.

The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel bias" and accused him of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive Israel-basher … who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make Israel look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust."

The assertion that 'most of the casualties were Lebanese civilians' is completely unproven. Ms. Brooks has no way of proving that most of those casualties were civilians. Whom is she counting as a civilian casualty? If rockets were launched from a house's "launcher room" in Southern Lebanon and the IDF bombed the house in response, are the people inside 'civilians'? Does she expect Israel to send ground troops in to ask whether the people inside are 'civilians' or terrorists? How can you distinguish the terrorists when they don't wear uniforms and they hide among civilians?

Forgive me - I criticized Human Rights Watch (which I think is a waste of time) rather than Brooks in that last paragraph. But notice how what Brooks complains about is the right wing of the media and the blogosphere. You can bet that the left wing adopted Human Rights Watch's reports lock, stock and barrel. Now, here comes Brooks and my response to her:

But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize Israel can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism. Think Israel's tactics against Hezbollah were too heavy-handed, or that Israel hasn't always been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the United States should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military support for Israel? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless you want to be called an anti-Semite — and probably a terrorist sympathizer to boot.

How did adopting a reflexively pro-Israel stance come to be a mandatory aspect of American Jewish identity? Skepticism — a willingness to ask tough questions, a refusal to embrace dogma — has always been central to the Jewish intellectual tradition. Ironically, this tradition remains alive in Israel, where respected public figures routinely criticize the government in far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.

In a climate in which good-faith criticism of Israel is automatically denounced as anti-Semitic, everyone loses. Israeli policies are a major source of discord in the Islamic world, and anger at Israel usually spills over into anger at the U.S., Israel's biggest backer.

With resentment of Israeli policies fueling terrorism and instability both in the Middle East and around the globe, it's past time for Americans to have a serious national debate about how to bring a just peace to the Middle East. But if criticism of Israel is out of bounds, that debate can't occur — and we'll all pay the price.

That's funny - I've seen plenty (too many) articles in the American press and elsewhere that are highly critical of Israel. Is Ms. Brooks of the Walt and Mearsheimer school that Israel controls the media? Is Ms. Brooks a frustrated (Jewish, of course) anti-Semite? For the record, Jews can be anti-Semites too. We call them 'self-hating Jews,' right Ms. Brooks?

For those of you who think Human Rights Watch isn't anti-Semitic, have a look at this article by Anne Bayefsky about what Human Rights Watch is really about. Recall Human Rights Watch's role in the explosion caused by 'Palestinians' on a Gaza beach in June, in which Human Rights Watch led the charge to blame Israel. Finally, the Human Rights Watch publication that Ms. Brooks is apparently discussing is called "Questions and answers on hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah." You can find a discussion of NGO Monitor's refutation of this biased report here.

Human Rights Watch deserves every last bit of acrimony that they get from the Jewish community and from right wingers everywhere. They have earned it.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:23 AM