Terrorists and Double Standards

[boyntonstu]

WWW.FRONTPAGEMAG.COM Print Font:

Terrorists and Double Standards
By: Alan M. Dershowitz
Friday, August 14, 2009

If the United States can carry out targeted killings, why can’t Israel?
A recent front page of The New York Times featured an article entitled “Drug chieftains tied to Taliban are U.S. targets – Shift in Afghan policy.” It stated that:

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

The double standard displayed by the world makes a mockery of universal human rights and international humanitarian law. Neither will retain any degree of credibility if the operating principle’s “rights for me but not for thee.”

See Rule 4 of your Membership Agreement for more details.

[DC]

“Fifty Afghans believed to be drug traffickers with ties to the Taliban have been placed on a Pentagon target list to be captured or killed… and that major traffickers with proven links to the insurgency have been put on the ‘joint integrated prioritized target list.’ That means they have been given the same target status as insurgent leaders, and can be captured or killed at any time.”


where exactly is the difference of those 2 status?

those in the "Belive to be linked" status only between 900-1600

[ddt]

WWW.FRONTPAGEMAG.COM
You might want to link to the article itself (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35925) instead of the front page?


If the United States can carry out targeted killings, why can’t Israel?
Israel does, so apparently it can. :rolleyes:

One of the targeted assassinations that Dershowitz mentions is that of Sheik Yassin. Do you remember that in order to kill him, Israel sent a plane that wiped out the whole apartment block he lived in, killing several innocent families in the process? A bit overblown (pun intended), if you ask me, to kill a cripple in a wheelchair.

Israel has carried out hundreds of targeted killings, and I don't see a constant outcry against them. I suggest, go to the site of B'Tselem to educate yourself.

[Matthew Best]

One of the targeted assassinations that Dershowitz mentions is that of Sheik Yassin. Do you remember that in order to kill him, Israel sent a plane that wiped out the whole apartment block he lived in, killing several innocent families in the process?

If this was a targeted assassination, I'd hate to see an untargeted one.

[Marc39]

You might want to link to the article itself (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35925) instead of the front page?


Israel does, so apparently it can. :rolleyes:

One of the targeted assassinations that Dershowitz mentions is that of Sheik Yassin. Do you remember that in order to kill him, Israel sent a plane that wiped out the whole apartment block he lived in, killing several innocent families in the process? A bit overblown (pun intended), if you ask me, to kill a cripple in a wheelchair.

Israel has carried out hundreds of targeted killings, and I don't see a constant outcry against them. I suggest, go to the site of B'Tselem to educate yourself.

The IDF follows strict guidelines set forth by the Israeli Supreme Court in carrying out targeted assassinations in which each of those "hundreds" of actions is planned in close concert with legal counsel. Targeted killings have the advantage of being more precise than bombings, generally resulting in minimized collateral damage.

I would take B'Tselem with a large grain of salt as it is a pro-Palestinian group with a history of anti-Israel bias, as with other NGOs.

[ddt]

The IDF follows strict guidelines set forth by the Israeli Supreme Court in carrying out targeted assassinations in which each of those "hundreds" of actions is planned in close concert with legal counsel. Targeted killings have the advantage of being more precise than bombings, generally resulting in minimized collateral damage.
Do you somehow deny my description how Sheik Yassin was killed? :jaw-dropp Do you deny that he was the target of a targeted killing? :jaw-dropp Even if I were (*) wrong in the latter, it would be because Dershowitz claimed so in the article. And for clarity, I didn't claim that every targeted killing by Israel was accompanied by so many other deaths; on the contrary! I claimed that only those targeted killings that were so outrageous as Yassin's got international coverage.

(*) That's an irrealis, to be clear.


I would take B'Tselem with a large grain of salt as it is a pro-Palestinian group with a history of anti-Israel bias, as with other NGOs.
Oh yeah. NGOs always have an anti-Israel bias. :eye-poppi

Let's just look at their numbers, on this page (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp). Since Sept. 29, 2000, 387 Palestinians have been killed during a targeted killing; 234 of those were the actual target. So for every 3 targeted kills, 2 innocent bystanders were killed on average.

[ddt]

If this was a targeted assassination, I'd hate to see an untargeted one.

That's when an IDF officer emptied his gun at point-blank range on a 13-year old gun. He claimed for sure that he didn't target here, yet, somehow, all bullets ended up in her body.
(link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams))

(cheap shot? Sure, but this tread is guaranteed to end up in bickering anyway)

[Marc39]

Do you somehow deny my description how Sheik Yassin was killed? :jaw-dropp Do you deny that he was the target of a targeted killing? :jaw-dropp Even if I were (*) wrong in the latter, it would be because Dershowitz claimed so in the article. And for clarity, I didn't claim that every targeted killing by Israel was accompanied by so many other deaths; on the contrary! I claimed that only those targeted killings that were so outrageous as Yassin's got international coverage.

I don't recall the details Yassin's death, however, he was a terrorist, making him a legitimate target under the law of armed conflict.

Oh yeah. NGOs always have an anti-Israel bias. :eye-poppi

Let's just look at their numbers, on this page (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp). Since Sept. 29, 2000, 387 Palestinians have been killed during a targeted killing; 234 of those were the actual target. So for every 3 targeted kills, 2 innocent bystanders were killed on average.

NGOs, generally, have demonstrated an anti-Israel bias. Go to B'Tselem's homepage and it's likely that most, if not all, articles are critical of Israel.

The internal politics of NGOs dictate an anti-Israel agenda. Their financial support comes from wealthy donors with their own anti-Israel biases who have established expectations of more aggressive coverage of Israel than Arab states or face loss of funding.

HRW officials were caught recently soliciting donations in Saudi Arabia by boasting of their aggressive pursuit of Israel.

Additionally, information-gathering methods of NGOs are inherently flawed in relying on eyewitnesses who often are unreliable and pressured into providing information that is against Israel.

[ddt]

I don't recall the details Yassin's death,
Pleading ignorance is no excuse. This one sounds awfully like "Ich habe es nicht gewusst", i.e., selective memory, as it was all over the news all over the world.


NGOs, generally, have demonstrated an anti-Israel bias. Go to B'Tselem's homepage and it's likely that most, if not all, articles are critical of Israel.
Obviously, you don't even know what B'Tselem is. From their mission statement (http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Index.asp):
As an Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law.

Criticism of, say, Saudi Arabia seems hardly applicable for such an organization, doesn't it? I note that they have several pages with criticism of the PA, though.

So stuff your unfounded allegations based on either ignorance or malice. I note that your attack on HRW was not accompanied by any evidence either.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

HRW officials were caught recently soliciting donations in Saudi Arabia by boasting of their aggressive pursuit of Israel.


I don't suppose you have any evidence of that at all....

[Marc39]

I don't suppose you have any evidence of that at all....

Why?

[Marc39]

Obviously, you don't even know what B'Tselem is. From their mission statement (http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Index.asp):

I know more about B'Tselem than you or most others.

Every article currently on their website homepage attacks Israel...

http://www.btselem.org/English/

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I don't suppose you have any evidence of that at all....

Why?

Ok, I'll try that again in more standard English. Could you provide evidence of that statement because I would be interested in reading it.

[Marc39]

Ok, I'll try that again in more standard English. Could you provide evidence of that statement because I would be interested in reading it.

Better.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/fundraising_corruption_at_huma.php

[ddt]

I know more about B'Tselem than you or most others.

Every article currently on their website homepage attacks Israel...

http://www.btselem.org/English/

You've already shown your ignorance.

Evidence to the contrary: this page (http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli_Civilians/). It's about Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians.

[ddt]

Better.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/fundraising_corruption_at_huma.php

And the answer by HRW (http://www.hrw.org/en/node/84956).

[Marc39]

You've already shown your ignorance.

Evidence to the contrary: this page (http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli_Civilians/). It's about Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians.

I never suggested B'Tselem never stray from their fixation on Israel. However, most who monitor the NGO business, as I do, know B'Tselem is, overall, pro-Palestinian. and anti-Israel. Cherry-picking won't help your argument.

Also, having demonstrated your embarrassing level of ignorance of Middle East affairs, you're in no positon to cast stones.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[ddt]

I never suggested B'Tselem never stray from their fixation on Israel.
No Marc, you said:

Every article currently on their website homepage attacks Israel...
and that's ostensibly a lie.

And saying that B'Tselem has a fixation on Israel is as ludicrous as saying that the NRA has a fixation on the US. It's what they were set up for.

[DC]

http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/images/goalposts.jpgI never suggested B'Tselem never stray from their fixation on Israel. However, most who monitor the NGO business, as I do, know B'Tselem is, overall, pro-Palestinian. and anti-Israel. Cherry-picking won't help your argument.

Also, having demonstrated your embarrassing level of ignorance of Middle East affairs, you're in no positon to cast stones.

[Marc39]

No Marc, you said:

and that's ostensibly a lie.

And saying that B'Tselem has a fixation on Israel is as ludicrous as saying that the NRA has a fixation on the US. It's what they were set up for.

All articles currently featured on B'Tselem's homepage, below. Each, critical of Israel. No articles critical of Arabs or anyone else...

http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/20090806_Sheikh_Jarah_Evacuation.asp

http://www.btselem.org/english/Freedom_of_Movement/20090806_Beit_Awwa.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20090802.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/20090726_Letter_to_Uzi_Landau_on_sewage.asp

http://www.btselem.org/english/press_releases/20090722.asp

http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20090715.asp

This is more the rule than the exception.
http://www.btselem.org/English/



'

[ddt]

All articles currently featured on B'Tselem's homepage, below. Each, critical of Israel. No articles critical of Arabs or anyone else...
It's as if you like being caught lying. You get at the link I gave previously by clicking on "Palestinian violence", right at the top of the homepage.


This is more the rule than the exception.
More moving of goalposts noted. Above you said "all".

ETA: Oh, and before we forget. The mission statement of B'Tselem is to be a watchdog of Israeli politics. So don't hold your breath waiting for an article critical of Iranian politics, Marc.

[Marc39]

By the way, "congratulations" to B'Tselem for showing the utmost in "integrity" in retracting their [baseless] claims of Israeli war
crimies [a common B'Tselem allegation against Israel Yawn]---Except, the retraction was issued 5 years late.

http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/200907281887/B-Tselem-retracts-war-crimes-accusations-against-IDF-5-years-later.html

[Marc39]

It's as if you like being caught lying. You get at the link I gave previously by clicking on "Palestinian violence", right at the top of the homepage.


More moving of goalposts noted. Above you said "all".

ETA: Oh, and before we forget. The mission statement of B'Tselem is to be a watchdog of Israeli politics. So don't hold your breath waiting for an article critical of Iranian politics, Marc.

I simply went to B'Tselem's website to find evidence of a preponderance of anti-Israel coverage. Now, how did I correctly predict this would be the case?

[Marc39]

ETA: Oh, and before we forget. The mission statement of B'Tselem is to be a watchdog of Israeli politics. So don't hold your breath waiting for an article critical of Iranian politics, Marc.

Who is forgetting? Apparently, you. I stated at the outset that B'Tselem has a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel agenda.

Why are your posts so utterly confused on any matter related to the Middle East?

[ddt]

I simply went to B'Tselem's website to find evidence of a preponderance of anti-Israel coverage. Now, how did I correctly predict this would be the case?
No, twice you claimed they only had anti-Israel coverage. You were corrected twice on that lie. And all that after I had quoted the relevant part of their mission statement.


Who is forgetting? Apparently, you. I stated at the outset that B'Tselem has a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel agenda.
You never mentioned pro-Palestinian, that is lie #3. And it is factually inaccurate; they have a pro-human rights agenda.


Why are your posts so utterly confused on any matter related to the Middle East?
Gross, coming from the guy who conveniently "forgot" how Sheik Yassin was killed.

[Marc39]

No, twice you claimed they only had anti-Israel coverage. You were corrected twice on that lie. And all that after I had quoted the relevant part of their mission statement.

You're grasping at straws. I stated at the very outset B. has a pro-Pal/anti-Israeli bias, which you corroborated.

You never mentioned pro-Palestinian, that is lie #3. And it is factually inaccurate; they have a pro-human rights agenda.


Sure, I mentioned B. is pro-Palestinian. Perhaps, it was merely an oversight on your part.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5008052&postcount=5

I would take B'Tselem with a large grain of salt as it is a pro-Palestinian group with a history of anti-Israel bias, as with other NGOs.


I couldn't have made my sentiments any clearer.


You stated a few posts earlier that B. is an Israel "watchog" Do you even know what your position is? Evidently, not since you support my argument.

As an overall indication of B.'s lack of neutrality toward Israel, their slogan is the following...

"The Israeli Information Center For Human Rights In The Occupied Territories"

The term "occupied territories" is politically charged against Israel as the "territories" are not "occupied" The correct legal status of the territories is disputed as Israel has legitimate claims on the territories.

Furthermore, Israel evacuated Gaza years ago and the Oslo Agreements permit an Israeli presence in the West Bank, both military and residential. Legal definitions of occupation are inapplicable to Israel.

Finally, the "territories" are not sovereign states to be occupied.

Gross, coming from the guy who conveniently "forgot" how Sheik Yassin was killed.

What is gross are your posts demonstrating sub-zero reading comprehension and alarming short-term memory lapses.

[Thunder]

Furthermore, Israel evacuated Gaza years ago and the Oslo Agreements permit an Israeli presence in the West Bank, both military and residential. Legal definitions of occupation are inapplicable to Israel. .

Please show us the section of the Oslo Agreements where Israel is allowed to enforce a crippling embargo upon the whole of Gaza.

Please show us the section of the Oslo Agreements where Israel's status within the sections of the West Bank that it controls are NOT legally defined as an Occupation.

[ddt]

As an overall indication of B.'s lack of neutrality toward Israel, their slogan is the following...

"The Israeli Information Center For Human Rights In The Occupied Territories"

The term "occupied territories" is politically charged against Israel as the "territories" are not "occupied" The correct legal status of the territories is disputed as Israel has legitimate claims on the territories.
And as we've gone over numerous times, Israel has never made that claim. Only a couple rabid at the mouth "Greater Israel" supporting extremists like you make that claim. The rest of the world, rightly, calls them "occupied territories".


Furthermore, Israel evacuated Gaza years ago and the Oslo Agreements permit an Israeli presence in the West Bank, both military and residential. Legal definitions of occupation are inapplicable to Israel.
You've made this claim numerous times without backing it up. I don't even bother to ask evidence anymore.


Finally, the "territories" are not sovereign states to be occupied.
Nothing in the label "occupied territories" implies they're sovereign states. Strawman.

[fuelair]

That's when an IDF officer emptied his gun at point-blank range on a 13-year old gun. He claimed for sure that he didn't target here, yet, somehow, all bullets ended up in her body.
(link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams))

(cheap shot? Sure, but this tread is guaranteed to end up in bickering anyway)

A 13-year old gun?

[ddt]

A 13-year old gun?

:o :o :o
Which is the right smilie for: "what a stupid error made I"? Thanks for capturing it. So the right text would be:

That's when an IDF officer emptied his gun at point-blank range on a 13-year old girl. He claimed for sure that he didn't target here, yet, somehow, all bullets ended up in her body.

[Marc39]

And as we've gone over numerous times, Israel has never made that claim. Only a couple rabid at the mouth "Greater Israel" supporting extremists like you make that claim. The rest of the world, rightly, calls them "occupied territories".

Except, the West Bank is not legally occupied for reasons I explained previously. Merely falling back on the "the rest of the world thinks..." argument is lame as the rest of the world is as uninformed of the subject matter as you.

Oslo transferred administrative authority of the West Bank to the PNA. Further, Oslo calls for both an internal and external IDF presence and it does not preclude Jewish settlement.

You've made this claim numerous times without backing it up. I don't even bother to ask evidence anymore.

It's way over your head, anyway.

Nothing in the label "occupied territories" implies they're sovereign states. Strawman.

The West Bank is not a sovereign Arab state. The territory is disputed because when Israel seized the West Bank during the '67 War, Jordan controlled the territory. Jordan, however, was not the recognized sovereign. The Palestinians living in the WB are not the established sovereign as they rejected that territory when they rejected UN Res. 181.

The legal case can be made that Israel is the sovereign as the Allies of World War I transferred sovereignty over Palestine from the Ottoman Turks, after their defeat, to the Jews of Israel with the San Remo Resolution establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland, further supported by the League of Nations Mandate For Palestine that established all of Palestine--including the West Bank, and Gaza--for Jewish settlement.

Otherwise, the last legal sovereign of Palestine were the Ottoman Turks, prior to being defeated in WW I. Last time I checked, however, they did not want the land back.

[ddt]

Except, the West Bank is not legally occupied for reasons I explained previously. Merely falling back on the "the rest of the world thinks..." argument is lame as the rest of the world is as uninformed of the subject matter as you.
We've gone over this before in the moderated settlements thread. Authorative bodies have said it's an occupation. Case closed.


Oslo transferred administrative authority of the West Bank to the PNA. Further, Oslo calls for both an internal and external IDF presence and it does not forbid Jewish settlement.
Quote the paragraphs.


It's way over your head, anyway.
Personal insult noted.


The West Bank is not a sovereign Arab state.
Read again what I wrote. I never denied that, on the contrary, my statement implicitly acknowledged it.

[Marc39]

We've gone over this before in the moderated settlements thread. Authorative bodies have said it's an occupation. Case closed.

That was the embarrassing thread in which you erroneously maintained no distinction between the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate, and, despite numerous attempts to clarify the difference, which is not brain surgery to understand, you, nevertheless, could not grasp the issues.

You also did not know the difference between a binding and non-binding UN resolution and you actually suggested the US State Department sets international law.

Were I you, I would not wish to bring up that unfortunate thread which revealed the extent to which you are uninformed of the subject matter.

[Thunder]

The Palestine Mandate ended in 1948. Let it go.

PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

The Mandate for Palestine (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/palmanda.asp) shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.




Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

[fuelair]

:o :o :o
Which is the right smilie for: "what a stupid error made I"? Thanks for capturing it. So the right text would be:

That's when an IDF officer emptied his gun at point-blank range on a 13-year old girl. He claimed for sure that he didn't target here, yet, somehow, all bullets ended up in her body.

Can you provide details on that? If so, thanks in advance!

[ddt]

Can you provide details on that? If so, thanks in advance!

The link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams) I gave before to the wiki article is the same nevertheless. What details do you want? It's a well-known case, I might add.

[Doctor Evil]

The link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams) I gave before to the wiki article is the same nevertheless. What details do you want? It's a well-known case, I might add.

It is a well known case. I seem to remember that he was acquitted (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/645818.html) as it was found that his subordinates lied in order to frame him, since he was very unpopular at his unit. As a result, the prosecution's case fell apart.
Al-Hams was shot dead by IDF soldiers commanded by Captain R after she approached their "Girit" outpost adjacent to Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip.

R's defense attorneys, Yoav Meni and Elad Eisenberg, succeeded in finding contradictions in testimony provided by the prosecution's witnesses during the trial.

The witnesses, Givati Brigade soldiers from R's company, said they lied during the military probe of the incident and in statements they provided the court in an effort the cause the ousting of R from the company.

[ddt]

It is a well known case. I seem to remember that he was acquitted (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/645818.html) as it was found that his subordinates lied in order to frame him, since he was very unpopular at his unit. As a result, the prosecution's case fell apart.

I know, there was a lot of bad blood in his unit, and that led to irregularities in the case and ultimately to his acquittal. Still, in all the renderings of what happened there were a couple of facts undisputed:
1) he stood right next to the girl, and he was the only one;
2) the girl ended up with a magazine full of bullets in her body.
Now explain that.

The explanation of the other soldiers was that he "confirmed the kill", i.e., he deliberately killed the girl who had been wounded shortly before that.

His own explanation was that he was shot at, and then shot at the ground. So, when Matthew asked about how an untargeted killing would look like, I thought this was a nice example. :rolleyes:

[Doctor Evil]

I know, there was a lot of bad blood in his unit, and that led to irregularities in the case and ultimately to his acquittal. Still, in all the renderings of what happened there were a couple of facts undisputed:
1) he stood right next to the girl, and he was the only one;
2) the girl ended up with a magazine full of bullets in her body.
Now explain that.

The explanation of the other soldiers was that he "confirmed the kill", i.e., he deliberately killed the girl who had been wounded shortly before that.

His own explanation was that he was shot at, and then shot at the ground. So, when Matthew asked about how an untargeted killing would look like, I thought this was a nice example. :rolleyes:

I did not plan to comment but I followed your link and found that the reason for his acquittal seem to be missing. Since it seems that wikipedia do not cover that, I thought I will supply the missing details.

[ddt]

I did not plan to comment but I followed your link and found that the reason for his acquittal seem to be missing. Since it seems that wikipedia do not cover that, I thought I will supply the missing details.

Fair enough.

It still surprises me that he was acquitted though. The technical evidence - the bullets in the girl's body, and the shape of the wounds - would have clearly identified that he killed the girl, and at close range. So whatever his comrades say and later retract, that evidence still stands. However, IDF investigations rarely if ever use Palestinian witnesses, in this case the hospital/doctor where here corpse was taken to.

[Architect]

Of course, in focussing upon the Israel/Palestine issue you enter a whole heap of pain.

What was the USG response to, say, Operation Flavius or other similar non-Middle East cases?

[Marc39]

It is a well known case. I seem to remember that he was acquitted (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/645818.html) as it was found that his subordinates lied in order to frame him, since he was very unpopular at his unit. As a result, the prosecution's case fell apart.

Does not fall under the heading of targeted assassination.

[ddt]

Does not fall under the heading of targeted assassination.

Tsk tsk. That reading comprehension thing again. Look at post #7. I explicitly advertised the case as an untargeted killing.

[Marc39]

NGOs, generally, have demonstrated an anti-Israel bias. Go to B'Tselem's homepage and it's likely that most, if not all, articles are critical of Israel.

The internal politics of NGOs dictate an anti-Israel agenda. Their financial support comes from wealthy donors with their own anti-Israel biases who have established expectations of more aggressive coverage of Israel than Arab states or face loss of funding.

HRW officials were caught recently soliciting donations in Saudi Arabia by boasting of their aggressive pursuit of Israel.

Additionally, information-gathering methods of NGOs are inherently flawed in relying on eyewitnesses who often are unreliable and pressured into providing information that is against Israel.

More from the Wall Street Journal on anti-Israel bias among human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch, as I mentioned in my post, above...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html

[The Fool]

More from the Wall Street Journal on anti-Israel bias among human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch, as I mentioned in my post, above...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html
do your duty son. You have to slag HRW, they have been critical of Israel....go get em.

Truth or honesty is not important, just do your duty...