On the Op-Ed page, more slop from Robert Bernstein, former chairman of Human Rights Watch, attacking HRW and other international orgs over Gaza.
there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”
Yes and how did we know about the killing fields in Cambodia or in Rwanda or in Poland? Other people told us about them; and for some damned reason we chose to believe them.
I got the Kemp propaganda in an email from a family member yesterday. It’s certainly making the rounds. Kemp works for the American Jewish Committee, by proxy, as Blankfort pointed out earlier, something the Times fails to inform its readers; and Eva Smagacz points out that in his piece, Kemp starts using the word "we" halfway thru to identify with the IDF, as against Hamas and Hezbollah.
Related Posts
- ‘Little Baghdad’ at 11:30 a.m., and all the children in school
- I slob, you slob, we all slob for the Is-lob!
- New School should honor its tradition by inviting Finkelstein, who’s actually been to Gaza, to Goldstone panel
- Memo to NYT: Goldstone didn’t call white phosphorus a war crime; HRW did
- Human Rights Watch says burning phosphorus used in civilian areas
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 114 comments }
Just posted the following on another thread, but I believe this is its rightful place (I apologise if this is a breach of blog etiquette):
Bernstein very eloquently and unintentionally explains why it is so important for human rights groups to focus on Israel. Israel is completely misrepresented in the West as a free democracy and respecter of human rights, albeit with a few “warts”. If one of the main purposes of human rights groups is to draw attention to abuses that would otherwise go unnoticed by public opinion and policy-makers, then Israel is where it’s at. Specific documentation of abuses is important, but we all know that the Iranians and the Chinese are serial violators of human rights. How many of us know that Israel is? Israel is structurally racist and discriminatory, a brutal long-time occupier, torturer, illegal user of US arms (cluster bombs, white phospherous), and consistent abuser of Palestinian rights in so many ways. Yet, the founder of an important human rights group virtually absolves Israel, treating it as a free society (free for whom?!) and using the hackneyed hasbarah excuses that Israel may have a few problems but others deserve more attention, and Israel’s enemies “force” it to kill women and children in “self-defense”. In light of such disinformation, we need more, not less information on Israel’s violations of human rights. Good thing Bernstein’s gone and his successors at HRW are less hypocritical.
It’s past time to attack the meme that “Israel has the right to defend itself.”
Israel has been abusing the excuse of self-defense for decades to wage aggressive wars. Even Goldstone whitewashed the Gaza massacres as defensive operations.
Israel should be disarmed.
Re: “…we all know that the Iranians and the Chinese are serial violators of human rights. How many of us know that Israel is?” Shmuel asks the incisive question. I would suggest more by asking, “Doesn’t Saudi Arabia for example support the same culture that the Taliban does?” Does the USA ever suggest we should improve
the lot of Saudi women? No. Instead we are supporting the likes of our hired American guards in Kabul–anyone seen those photos? Why is the USA so
disdainful, so accepting in our diplomacy that the rest of the world, especially the brown and black world, has no eyes? Yet including the Europeans too–Norway for example. Norwegians have no eyes?
Bernstein: “…there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.”
What does this Wittyesque abstract obfuscation mean? Acts of self-defense are clearly intentional. Perpetration directly implies the subject actor(s) is a criminal.
This in turn directly implies intent or scienter. We are talking about intentional acts on both sides. Why not center on the issue of what is acceptable and not when
some justifies their behavior as “self-defense?” USA criminal law does it, e.g., in most states, you cannot legally set bear traps or set trigger shotguns in your yard just in case you suspect burglars may be coming, or even if they had already come.
And you cannot respond to a purse snatcher or someone who pushes you out of a
customer service line by punching them in the face, knocking them down , and
beasting the living shit out of them, not to mention, pulling out a gun and blowing them away. Proportional reaction is a key for civilization, and the same goes
on the macro or state level regarding “preemption” in war. In the world of fine art,
Expressionism relies on distortion to make an emotional point–but the painting hangs on a wall, it’s not a serial killer or a Charlie Manson, or his crew.
Great point, Citizen! I am so used to hearing a general anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotries all around me, that it never occured to me to point out that some of them (as you point out, the Saudis) are sacrosanct, or at least the idea of “regime change” is out of bounds. And many of the same conditions which are trotted out as overwhelming reasons to conquer and re-shape Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan exist elsewhere, in equal or larger measure. I would really like to ask someone who supports the US military campaign in the ME to explain the differences.
Excellent point, thanks. It’s better one, and easier to make for practical purposes then pointing that Israeli society operates in many ways in a similiar fashion to those countries. That’s just too much of a stretch for many people who buy the “ME’s only democracy” line.
I find it interesting that the whole, ostensibly progressive discourse about proportionality is still distorted in Israel’s favor in a broader way. The moderate commentators who tend to use the term accept that the goals behind Israel’s actions are basically admirable, but wonder whether the actions are disproportionate. On the other hand, they accept that Hamas’ actions are evil “terrorism” on their face.
The truth is just the opposite. Even the most scrupulous use of force by Israel is still, given the conditions, enforcing a morally detestable siege and occupation. The justified path for them is in dismantling that system of oppression, after which they can claim self-defense. Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups are in fact resisting that injustice (although they do other things that are morally suspect), and one may argue that their use of violence to that end is disproportionate.
I love you, Shmuel.
Israel is completely misrepresented in the West as a free democracy and respecter of human rights, albeit with a few “warts”.
we all know that the Iranians and the Chinese are serial violators of human rights. How many of us know that Israel is?
Israel is structurally racist and discriminatory, a brutal long-time occupier, torturer, illegal user of US arms (cluster bombs, white phospherous)
the founder of an important human rights group virtually absolves Israel, treating it as a free society (free for whom?!) and using the hackneyed hasbarah excuses that Israel may have a few problems but others deserve more attention, and Israel’s enemies “force” it to kill women and children in “self-defense”
Has anyone read the Wikipedia entry on the Goldstone report? It’s a sham, like most other topics related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The Wiki article on Goldstone: ” In the latter years of Apartheid in South Africa, Goldstone served as chairperson of the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, later known as the Goldstone Commission.[1] The Commission played a critical role in uncovering and publicizing allegations of grave wrongdoing by the Apartheid-era South African security forces and bringing home to “White” South Africans the extensive violence that was being done in their name.”
The article also states he is a Zionist. And that he wrote a book on the legacy of the Nuremberg trials.
And that he, a Zionist Jew, was surprised he was picked for the report in question.
He requested the UN mission be extended to include gathering facts about those Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel and any other possible Hamas violations of the internationally recognized law (stemming from the Nuremberg Trials) applicable. This was done
He delivered the facts, the chips no matter where they fell, as much as he was able to, considering Israel chose to
not cooperate. He wrote a narrative around the report as forgiving of Israel as possible under these circumstances and motivated by his being both a Zionist and
a scholar of the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials–the “Never Again” aspirations
of those trials.
So now he’s a self-hating Jew? Would love to hear or read an interview of him these day.
The Wiki article on Goldstone: ” In the latter years of Apartheid in South Africa, Goldstone served as chairperson of the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, later known as the Goldstone Commission.[1] The Commission played a critical role in uncovering and publicizing allegations of grave wrongdoing by the Apartheid-era South African security forces and bringing home to “White” South Africans the extensive violence that was being done in their name.”
The article also states he is a Zionist. And that he wrote a book on the legacy of the Nuremberg trials.
And that he, a Zionist Jew, was surprised he was picked for the report in question.
He requested the UN mission be extended to include gathering facts about those Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel and any other possible Hamas violations of the internationally recognized law (stemming from the Nuremberg Trials) applicable. This was done
He delivered the facts, the chips no matter where they fell, as much as he was able to, considering Israel chose to
not cooperate. He wrote a narrative around the report as forgiving of Israel as possible under these circumstances and motivated by his being both a Zionist and
a scholar of the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials–the “Never Again” aspirations
of those trials.
So now he’s a self-hating Jew? Would love to hear or read an interview of him these day.
Sorry for the duplicate post. I didn’t do it intentionally.
Did you see the section about “Military Experts”?
Richard Kemp is cited there.
we chose to believe them.
Therein lies the rub. In the US media, many pro-Israel organizations have, over the years, boosted Israel’s credibility, and maligned that of Arabs, Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East. So now, after 50+ years of propaganda, it becomes almost impossible to reference Palestinian sources without being summarily dismissed as unreliable. It’s hard enough citing Jewish sources or Israeli ones without Zionist defenders resorting to character assassination of the source (e.g. Amira, Haas, Illan Pappe, Akiva Eldar, to name a few).
Yeah, therein does lie the rub. I am reminded of the satire on the Lone Ranger: “What do you mean, “we,” kimo saby”
From Tonto. I’m also reminded of the nuance in advertizing over the years–of the tobacco industry.
In saying that “there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally”, Bernstein justifies anything that Hamas does, including sending rockets to Sderot, because the blockade of Gaza, being an act of war, would justify anything at all in self-defense (using his logic).
Sarah,
It’s not his logic.
In 1967 Israel, in justifying its attack on Egypt, attacked it after the latter (Egypt) closed the Tiran Straits. The Straits, were in Egyptian territory under Egyptian control. They are located some 180 miles south of Israel’s southern-most border.
So, Israel basically says, do as we say, not as we do.
As for Hamas’ rockets, you might want to read this:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
and this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861893834&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull
I don’t think Bernstein appreciates the irony in his statement–that would require
objectivity, not ideology, the latter of which he has in spades.
Wikipedia is Zionist as far as I-P is concerned.
Just look up Jayjg(sp) and SlimVirgin, and you’ll get the full story. There is a forum called Wikipedia Review which is devoted to well..reviewing Wikipedia and the most famous/active mods.
And this Bernstein guy is a Zionist. Look at who he is referring to, that Colonel Kemp guy. Kemp’s evidence? I’d LOVE to see a debate about the Gaza massacre. The Goldstone report. And have Kemp or Bernstein debate for the Zionists. What total crooks.
They have no evidence, no argument. Kemp didn’t do any research. He was saying that garbage before ‘Cast Lead’ was even over I think. And he’s just providing a slogan. It’s like the ‘right to defend itself’ line. Meaningless.
It’s like here in the West, up is down. Ethnocentric Jews and Zionists as well as their thugs get a platform to spew their bullshit over and over. IF we had a regular DEBATE about these issues in public, Zionism would be exposed for racist, colonialist ideology that it is. And people would see what complete liars these clowns are (Derhsowitz, Abe Foxman, Elie Wiesel, that lameass Rabbi softpeddalling BDS, oh even Jack Ross!, and of course the two frauds mentioned in this entry).
Not to mention Sharansky. Despite (or maybe because of) his past with the Helsinki Group, no human rights advocate with her/his salt would mention that man’s name, now that he has become a violator of human rights, with a three-year-old’s (apology to the toddlers) grasp of democratic principles.
no human rights advocate with her/his salt would mention that man’s [Natan Sharansky] name
You got that right. Jeezuss.
The thing about Kemp is that he served in the British Military. What qualifications does a hack like him have to speak about Gaza? Does he know any of the facts surrounding the conflict?
Is he familiar with the decades-long history of the conflict, so as to put it all in context?
Probably not.
Bernstein’s comments are important.
To dismiss them as “hasbara” as every point made by someone that differs with your thesis, is a crude form of “journalism”.
The founder of Human Rights Watch. Not a minor official, not a partisan.
Worthy of addressing his points.
Nakba-denying physician, heal thyself. You don’t really have any moral high ground from which to purport when you are one of the foremost proponents of the falsified “Pallywood” propaganda image.
Phil,
In dismissing his comments so, you describe your own work as dismissable.
Witty, seriously? Do you think anybody really cares what you think? What makes you think you have any credibility whatsoever? This is like the schoolyard bully picking on the teacher one grade ahead of him.
I sense some “plasticity” in your comment. Do you accept HRW as generally authoritative or only in this case?
Hey Witty, we didn’t DISMISS his comments. We all read the goddamn op-ed. And then after thinking about it, we realized that it’s pure propaganda.
And we’re pointing it out.
Only a crook like you Witty, who doesn’t even read the Goldstone report but comes out against it, and supports those against it would imply we were as superficial and fake as you.
And the fact that he is the ‘founder’ is superficial. What he has to say is more important than his title.
Go away, liar.
I hope Phil cares what I think, as I in ways represent his extended family, and majority of his liberal community.
The Bernstein op-ed points to the carelessness of the partisan left, the willingness to use whatever misrepresentation possible to achieve their operational ends.
A parallel in the “means to war” to what the Goldstone report criticized, that “by any means necessary” is the wrong choice.
Look at the idiotic language that Phil used to describe the Bernstein report. “NYT continues to justify dropping white phosphorous”.
Was there ANY apology in the Bernstein comments for Israel using white phosphorous?
“Slop”.
More descriptive of Phil’s editorializing than Bernstein’s.
I thought you claimed to be Phil’s friend. All you’re doing is coming around and spamming attacks against him on his own blog. You’re a first class jerk in addition to be a phony liberal, apparently.
You’re sinning in your own eyes again, Witty.
“con·demn (kən dem′)
transitive verb
to pass an adverse judgment on; disapprove of strongly; censure”
There’s no “apology” for Israel using white phosphorus. White phosphorus doesn’t come into it, because Bernstein avoids any particulars. He thinks that because Israel is a democracy (for some) it shouldn’t be criticized for its actions. This is the worst sort of apologetics–if a country is one of the “good guys” and claims to be acting in self defense, it can do anything. This is the same justification we heard from Bush and Cheney apologists.
Your own post, Witty, is the usual set of shameful evasions. All you ever do is jump in and criticize Phil and most of the time your criticisms are moronic. As in this case. Perhaps this is the best you can do.
You really are a moral coward, aren’t you? Keep spamming posts and plugging your fingers in your ears ignoring when people actually confront you on your hypocrisy. You might as well be parading around with an “The end is near!” placard.
And of course, your faux-liberalism shines through as you again, rather blatantly, attack American progressivism. If you truly believe yourself to be a liberal, Witty, you have got to be the worst liberal on the face of the Earth.
There are times when Phil is insightful and relevant.
There are times when his comments are partisan and trivial.
Witty, I’ve got a shocker for you; I’m Israeli, born and raised. I’m also Jewish. [Gasp].
If you love Israel so much, move. Go live in a colony in the occupied West Bank. Israel would love to have an ardent supporter like you driving on its *Jewish Only* roads there. It will be like traveling back in time to the Jim Crow era. You’ll have your own time machine in a sense.
——————–
There are times when Phil is insightful and relevant.
There are times when his comments are partisan and trivial.
And then there are times when you seem to be having a complete meltdown, RW.
————————-
You know, RW, for someone who visited Israel twice over the last 60 years, you sure are rather confident in your criticism of Phil.
Did it ever occur to you, that those who travel through the occupied territories ,and spend a few days among Palestinians to see what it’s like to be in their shoes, may have more of an insight than someone like you. You visited at the age of 13 was it? Wow. All the propaganda you get from American Zionists must be more reliable than any first hand experience on the ground.
Nolan,
Did you make contact with Harvey Stein when he posted here? He is also a dissenter, a documentary journalist, an Israeli.
He’s conducted quite a few interesting lengthy and substantive interviews.
I’m confident in my criticism of Phil’s comments and of his apparent attitudes, having read his work over decades, and because of our unavoidably permanent family friend relationship. I consider my personal commitment to Phil to be of the nature of family. If he is ever in serious need, I will be with him.
But, I disagree with his current political attitude on Israel, which shifted from the liberal dissent view to the “which side are you on” view.
I am an opponent of fanaticism. I regard both the likud and the Hamas fanatacism as two dancers holding civilians hostage in their mutual ideological and non-compromising fanaticism.
I can understand how you could form a one-sided opinion my comments from limited contact over any length of time, and from the simple-minded responses of hotheads here.
But, those would be uninformed, biased, prejudicial.
Take the time to find out my views, rather than just react.
Richard, I just want to briefly question your assertion that scapegoats Likud for “fanaticism” on the Israeli side. What wrongs has Likud committed that “moderate” or “liberal” Israeli parties have not, when they were in power?
(Kadima launched the last two wars, and all Israeli governments have continuously expanded the West Bank settlements. You may have to consider that the problem with Israel is more fundamental than the presence of Likud.)
“Richard, I just want to briefly question your assertion that scapegoats Likud ”
You’ve put your finger on Richard’s approach–he pretends that all the evil on the Israeli side (which he downplays) is the fault of the right, while Hamas is the devil figure on the left. He claims to be in favor of nuance and complexity, yet he has his own way of sticking the labels of angel and demon onto people. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with how he prefers to see the world.
Which wouldn’t matter-none of the battles in this comment section matter except to us, but it is, I think, representative of how mainstream American liberals think. Richard is a proxy for the widespread American hypocrisy on the subject. (I notice that he’s once again telling someone that he’s the deep thinker whose views are worth finding out, not like the hotheads around him. But I guess that’s normal enough. He, of course, has no inkling of the immense complexity of my thought–it even makes my head spin just thinking about it.)
The point Donald, is to cut through the hype, cut through the statements said about me or my position, to actually address the content of it.
Liberals share the disregard for fanaticism. There are moments when “which side are you on” is the appropriate position, that it takes bold, assertive, and insensitive action to realize a critical goal.
And, if solidarity were actually laying out their reasoning clearly and concisely, and coherently arguing that that is the case currently in Israel (that that was the best and/or only option in fact – not just in self-talk), then I would consider that.
What I experience however is the oppossite. At every question of “what is your goal”, or “what are the specific guidelines of BDS?” or in this case “what is the basis for report of Human Rights violation to be authoritative?”, the response of solidarity (including Phil) is to attack the messenger, rather than to do your God-damn homework.
You make something serious, into petty political play in not taking the time to present coherently, the basis of your proposal.
“Liberals share the disregard for fanaticism. ”
Wow, just let those words hang for a minute. Liberals disregard fanaticism.
Tell me Richard, would you not regard Liberman and Netnayahu as fanatics?
“At every question of “what is your goal”, or “what are the specific guidelines of BDS?” or in this case “what is the basis for report of Human Rights violation to be authoritative?”, the response of solidarity (including Phil) is to attack the messenger, rather than to do your God-damn homework.”
What I’ve observed Richard, is that when you are given an answer, you dismiss it, ignore it, dust youeself off and then return to repeat this came vaccuous argument.
Shingo,
I thought my consistent description of likud as similar to Hamas would have answered your question by now.
Shingo,
Try again without an accompanying statement of contempt.
Maybe we can actually get clear and speak the same language.
Yeah, keep the snide hypocrisy up. Keep accusing other people of doing exactly what you do. It makes you just that much more representative of Zionism.
One thing I’ve noticed about you Richard–on those rare occasions when facts are on your side, or even when you just think there are some specific facts on your side, you can write clearly. But most of the time, as in this thread, it’s incoherent word salad, or fortune cookie aphorisms strung together, sometimes with a flavor of blank verse that I’m tempted to imitate for the fun of it.
People reject your opinions because you’ve said enough to indicate that you have double standards and, in your own words, you “shoot the messenger”–that is, you attack human rights groups when they do their job. Your claim that you want reconciliation is contradicted by some of your other opinions.
Time to play switcheroo:
The founder of Human Rights Clock (HRC) says he is disappointed in his former organisation’s obsession with Burma. He too would have been concerned about the alleged massacres of unarmed monks, but a French colonel with lots of experience in Algeria (currently in the employ of the Washington-based lobby “Friends of Myanmar”) assured him that he knows these junta chaps and they’re cool. “If they killed all those monks,” he said, “I’m sure they had a good reason, and acted according to the highest ethical standards.”
Completely nailed it.
And incidentally? Yes, I am aware that I am personally attacking Witty directly, but you know what? He invites it. He invites it with his extreme, brittle, utter fakeness. On some level I find him even worse than people like WJ and Carnas and OhioJoes. Hey, at least those guys don’t pretend to be anything other than what they are — anti-Arab bigots.
Witty’s attempt to corrupt and coopt the American Left into his petty, revisionist perspective is categorically obscene to me. He comes around here and fabricates creditials –”I’m a liberal! I’m Phill Weiss’ friend!” and then he uses the shadow of his fabrications as cover to stick daggers in peoples’ backs.
You want to keep posting your crap here, Witty? Fine by me. But don’t think you have anybody fooled. Deep down, you’re just as disgusting and degrading as people like Ariel Sharon or Avigdor Lieberman or Alan Dershowitz. Just because you’re marginally polite now and then doesn’t disguise your agenda, and it doesn’t hide from us what sort of person you really are behind that shell of phony friendliness and staged pseudo-academics.
Chaos, Witty’s problem is that he’s unread, and sees no benefit in rectifying the problem. Because he’s already Jewish, and part of the ‘family’. And that’s enough.
“He invites it. He invites it with his extreme, brittle, utter fakeness.”
Bravo. You’re finally catching on, Chaos. Richard is baiting you. It’s called passive-agression, and the more you scream at him the more he feels his life is justified.
Now give us all a break and just ignore him.
I guess, fair enough. I’ll make an effort to just ignore him in the future. The notion grates upon me because it’s like leaving a falsehood uncorrected… but then again it isn’t like anyone is really falling for his act.
Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Oy gevalt. Again with the ‘human shields’. Yes, Monsieur Bernstein, as you correctly point out, the Israeli high court has entered judgments against the Israeli government. And one of those decisions found that the IDF was using human (Palestinian) shields during military operations, and that such practice was illegal. What did that bastion of ME democracy, home to the most moral fighting force in the history of world, do in response to the court’s decision? Well, it ignored it of course.
And where has the Iranian government, no liberal democratic institution to be sure, “openly declared its intention . . . to murder Jews everywhere”?
What a looking glass world where this nonsense is penned by the founder emeritus of blah, blah, blah, and printed prominently in NYT? No doubt this ass will garner a pulitzer for his editorial commentary, like those other shit slingers at the Times Friedman and Kristof. The academy frickin’ awards of journalism to such morons. And by ‘morons’, I don’t mean to use that word in the pejorative. Under the old, politically-incorrect system of intelligence classification, they would fall squarely in the ‘moron’ category, ranking just above ‘imbecile’. Edward Hermann wrote an article a long time ago entitled, ‘Why Turds Rise to the Top’, criticizing the so-called meritocracy. I wish I could find it.
Yeah, just shockingly bald lies, the truth completely reversed even. And more appalling for the presumed “prestige” of author and publication.
For the benefit of Richard Witty, let me point to some slop–
“At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.
That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West ”
That’s Bernstein trashing the credibility of his own human rights organization. That is not the attitude any serious human rights worker would take–it’s simply a fact, not disputable, that democratic countries can commit massive human rights violations. The history of the US provides plenty of examples. True, democratic countries don’t commit massive violations against their own voters, but a democracy can commit violations against blacks who can’t vote (remember slavery, Mr. Bernstein?) or Native Americans or Filipinos or Vietnamese and they can also support other governments which commit massive atrocities. France in the Algerian War could commit massive violations against Algerians. The list of examples is endless. And contrary to Bernstein’s claim, democracies don’t always reform themselves through those mechanisms he mentions–sometimes they simply lose the wars they fight, or they engage in a massive civil war (which is how the human rights abuse known as slavery was ended in the US) or they lie and cover up the atrocities that were committed.
So whatever Bernstein’s past record, here he is spouting utter nonsense. Ironically, it’s exactly the sort of nonsense that was used against Human Rights Watch when they criticized the mass killings in El Salvador and Guatemala, which were committed by governments closely linked to the US. The Reagan Administration said back then exactly what Mr. Bernstein says here–you can’t compare our record to theirs, you’re focusing too much on the West, and you are being fooled by the commies in Latin America into believing in atrocities that didn’t take place. I’m old enough to remember all this and Aryeh Neier wrote about it in a book (don’t have it handy) that was published a few years ago. Mr. Bernstein could have literally copied the sorts of attacks that were made against HRW 25 years ago and just changed a few names and published it in the NYT today.
Okay, Richard, do you have anything substantive to say in response to this, or are you just going to say “Oh, we have to take Bernstein seriously, because he’s a founder of HRW.” Sorry, but no, we don’t. We have to take people seriously when they present serious arguments, not the standard propaganda points that have always been used against human rights organizations that criticize America or one of its allies. Bernstein has adopted exactly the arguments that he condemned a few decades ago when they were used against Americas Watch. They were despicable then and they are despicable now.
Human Rights Watch responds to Bernstein’s idiocy–
link
And it wasn’t difficult to predict what they’d say either, because Bernstein’s comments were so foolish–as a frequent visitor to HRW’s website I figured Bernstein was lying about the number of reports on Israel vs. other Mideast countries, and his stance on covering democracies vs. dictatorships was shamefully stupid nonsense. By that standard I guess they should have ignored Abu Ghraib.
I suppose this needed to be said for the sake of the average person who doesn’t follow human rights issues much if at all–it shouldn’t have been necessary for anyone who does follow such issues.
That was also a sad response, responding to ONLY the point about “closed societies” and only in language that ignored his criticisms.
Its language of defensiveness, rather than of commitment to excellence, SAME language, same distractions, as of the Goldstone report.
Human Rights Watch had the option to say “we welcome the privately and publicly stated criticisms of Mr. Bernstein and will respond by thoroughly reviewing our process and methods, with the eye of seeking to improve them to the stature that our methodology stands all rational criticism”.
They didn’t say that.
Human Rights Watch does a professional job within its narrow mandate investigating human rights violations of both sides. I have not seen any credible criticism of their work and Bernstein here offered none. As I said, he only repeated the kind of arguments that the Reagan Administration used back in the 80’s when Americas Watch would criticize El Salvador. Which is not surprising–it’s the sort of response all apologists for a human rights violator tend to use.
HRW didn’t welcome Bernstein’s criticism because he didn’t offer any rational criticism–it was slop, the same slop that an ambassador for an Arab dictatorship would employ to defend his country. Bernstein’s own claims were inaccurate–HRW puts out plenty of information on Arab human rights violations, as any honest person would have acknowledged. It would do the cause of human rights no favors to pander to dishonest critics.
You, Richard, aren’t really presenting any sort of case. You’re assuming that Bernstein said something substantive about HRW’s coverage of Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon, when he hasn’t.
Bernstein has presented criticism over a year period, and is informed sufficiently to make such criticism.
To dismiss the criticism on the basis that it is partisan, begs the question of whether Human Rights Watch is partisan, Bernstein’s contention.
Its not attacking the messenger as in dismissing their message. Its criticizing the messenger, so that the messenger in the future has more veracity.
So, Witty, it sounds an awful lot like you’re proceeding from the assumption that the entirety of Human Rights Watch has become some sort of “partisan” hive mind (partisan to whom, exactly?) whereas one single man — Bernstein — is irreproachable in your mind.
You take the word of one man over the practical, verifiable documented record of actions of an entire international organization. And you still wonder why no one takes you seriously?
I don’t know if Bernstein is proud or ashamed of Human Rights Watch in general.
Similarly to the criticism of the IDF in Gaza, the information is potentially useful if partisans allow the information to be applied to reform and improvement, and not buried and not rejected by knee-jerk and blanket condemnation.
I think similarly can be said for Human Rights Watch. When LARGE components of the international human rights community doubt its methodology and conclusion, especially in an extremely critical and sensitive area of the world, that bodes poorly for the organization.
If Phil had even used language like “x conclusion from y set of facts is sloppy”, rather than the blanket description of “slop”.
It disgusts me to see Phil’s journalism degrade so, and for him to defend it.
There are no “LARGE” components of the international human rights community which doubt its methodology and conclusion–you’re making that up. There are hacks who can’t face up to the fact that Israel is now the target of deserved criticism. Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and the Goldstone Report, not to mention Palestinian groups (but yes, Witty, they’re only Arabs so they don’t count) all present basically the same view of what happened in Gaza. So did the mainstream press, when the events were going on. Hamas committed war crimes–Israel committed them on a far greater scale. But your hero Bernstein doesn’t want to admit it, so he shoots the messenger. And you blather on in some generalized fashion about criticism–this wasn’t constructive criticism and you damn well know it. This was intended to discredit HRW on the subject of human rights with readers of the NYT.
Your behavior is disgusting, Witty, since you bring that up. You react in kneejerk fashion to Phil’s posts and have done so for a long time. All the evidence supports the claim that Israel was guilty of brutality and war crimes in Gaza–it’s equally clear that Bernstein has nothing to say regarding the evidence, so he’s trying to poison the well. Calling it hasbara is accurate, but of course it’s behavior that’s not limited to Israel–every government that has committed human rights violations generally responds to accurate information about its crimes with lies, and its apologists enthusiastically join in. Think of how Bush supporters responded to the Abu Ghraib scandal–it’s the same. You, in predictable fashion, line up with the dishonest critic and criticize Phil for pointing out what is going on.
And that is disgusting to anyone who actually cares about human rights.
Europe and the US have doubts.
Doubts that could be cleared up by less dismissive response to criticism.
And you, so predictably, define any support of any element of Israel’s assertions as “lining up with the dishonest critic”.
It is possible that Human Rights Watch does need to improve its methodology and performance to a standard that it can be relied on, rather than subject to a now high level of doubt.
You’re on speaking terms with “Europe” and the “United States”? I think you mean that the governments don’t line up with the Goldstone Report, though I’m probably being excessively charitable in assuming you mean anything specific at all. Perhaps someone should explain to you that governments are not in the habit of behaving like altruistic human rights organizations, unless it fits in with what they perceive to be their interests (which in turn are influenced by various lobbies, one of which has considerable influence in the US on this subject. It’s called the Israel Lobby–perhaps you’ve heard of it). This is why (brace for this Witty, because it’s going to shock you) the US often criticizes the human rights violations of its enemies while often lying about the human rights violations of its allies or, for that matter, its own.
In other words you don’t have the names of any human rights groups that disagree with B’Tselem, HRW, Amnesty International, and the Goldstone Report about what happened in Gaza–they all agree that both sides behaved with brutality, but Israel on a much greater scale. And this consensus exists because that’s where the facts all point. In response to this you talk vaguely about the United States and “Europe”–apparently meaning the governments. You’re seriously putting forward the response of the US government as a member of the human rights community? Rhetorical question only–you don’t say anything serious when the facts are against you. You just calmly throw out the most ludicrous talking points.
You have nothing to say in defense of your position, no serious criticism to make of the human rights consensus on the Gaza War, nothing substantive to say in favor of Bernstein. It’s all fog.
You’re a troll. I respond for the practice. I know you don’t argue in good faith.
You don’t believe that Human Rights Watch veracity has taken a hit over the last couple years, for the appearance of partisanship?
Don’t you shoot the messenger, in defending the messenger.
Criticism is useful information for reform. The same as criticism that is in the Goldstone report is useful information for reform.
Dismissal inhibits reform. Israeli dismissal of the Goldstone report has been bad judgement. It is information. With the failed methodology it is just information, not yet sufficient for referral for prosecution certainly.
Really? I’d just love to see what would happen if you took your critical eye to the Holocaust, Witty.
Seriously, Witty. Do it. Question the Holocaust. Take your vaunted self-declared objectivity and apply some doubt to the Holocaust. See where that gets you.
Is there ever unfounded criticism? How about of Israel?
“You don’t believe that Human Rights Watch veracity has taken a hit over the last couple years, for the appearance of partisanship?”
No. I think you are a willing participant in an attempt at discrediting an organization which has been scrupulous in investigating and reporting on the war crimes of BOTH sides.
Both sides, Witty, and again, your smarmy implication that HRW has been partisan is a lie. The predictable result of HRW criticizing the crimes of both sides is that the partisans of Israel start screaming “partisanship” because their side is criticized. Human rights violators and their defenders always react like this and it’s no reason to think HRW has taken a hit to its credibility. If they weren’t getting this reaction that would indicate they were being too cowardly.
What you don’t want to face is that people you obviously sympathize with are behaving despicably and dishonorably, trying to “shoot the messenger”. I never cease to be amazed at just how low you’ll sink, but when you used that term here you reached a new low. It’s HRW and Goldstone and Amnesty International and B’Tselem and others who’ve been the messenger, and it’s people like Bernstein who are the people trying to shoot the messenger. The crime here is that of Israel–the messengers are the human rights groups and the people you defend, Witty, are the people trying to cover up the crime. This always happens with human rights groups, Witty–just get it through your head that the people screaming against HRW for criticizing Israel are like the communists who complained about Helsinki Watch or the Reagan Administration officials who lied about the massacre at El Mozote or the Americans who said that Lt. Calley was innocent. Of course you won’t face this, because it means facing the fact that your ideology leads people to behave in very ugly ways.
It was Bernstein’s contention that HRW has devolved to a level of partisanship that distorts its mission.
Its champion for 20 years, not its critic.
There are individuals that are screaming for Human Rights Watch to ignore what it sees. That is not Bernstein from the article at least.
Your response is reactive. Reactive responses are rarely the effective one.
The effective response is to reform. As a parallel with the Goldstone report, for Israel to undertake a thorough review, the implied mandated remedy of the report (not indictment), would IMPROVE the IDF performance. It is idiotic for Netanyahu to take the lazy approach and not seek that.
By undertaking thorough review, including inquiry into all levels that effect the process of governance re: human rights violations, Israel becomes more confident, and points the mirror at Hamas, other factions, and solidarity with militancy.
A similar urging of thorough review of the performance of Human Rights Watch, taking into account the substantive public and private criticisms of its board and leadership, adds to its effectiveness.
Bernstein isn’t suggesting that Human Rights Watch not be effective. You are in circling the wagons, rather than urging reform.
Witty, provide some criticisms of HRW. Provide a substantiated argument. Bernstein DID NOT do so. He USED his former position to degrade HRW because it’s conclusions contradict his political ideology – something you would have done as well.
CRIMES were committed Witty. This isn’t about ‘reform’ any more than other war crimes cases were about reform. Reform is a freaking OBVIOUS side effect of justice.
Israel should be HELD accountable for it’s crimes.
Only a racist and fascist like you would A) not even read the report and B) try to whitewash all of it and support the criticism of it.
You are a liar.
But Witty, you haven’t provided any evidence that HRW needs to reform. You didn’t respond to any facts and you didn’t provide any facts. Instead, you try to give the impression that it’s been established that HRW needs reform because your hero Bernstein says they need to reform. And what evidence does Bernstein provide and what arguments does he make?
First he LIES by saying that in the Mideast, HRW focuses mainly on Israel. That’s not a viewpoint–that’s a LIE.
Second, he says HRW is partisan. But that’s a LIE. Even on Israeli/Arab issues, they are very careful to publish reports on the crimes of both sides.
Third, Bernstein then makes the self-contradictory claim that democracies shouldn’t be criticized for their human rights violations because they are self-policing–so when HRW fulfills the role of a group within civil society criticising the crimes of Israel Bernstein attacks them.
Fourth, Bernstein is also tacitly claims that democracies always reform themselves through self-criticism. Another LIE. Democracies often commit enormous crimes and cover them up or never make restitution or, in some cases (like American slavery) the crime is only ended by a civil war.
Fifth, the criticisms of HRW on Israel are in no way whatsoever different from the criticisms human rights groups always receive by partisans of some guilty government. Bernstein’s identity as a founder of HRW doesn’t lend his criticisms any content. In fact, you could take the statements of Elliot Abrams or some other Reagan Administration hack from the 1980’s when they attacked Americas Watch and Amnesty International on El Salvador, change a few words, and reproduce it as Bernstein’s piece.
Sixth–You have absolutely nothing on your side to indicate that HRW needs to reform. You just keep repeating it and making a false equivalence between a human rights organization, HRW and ALL THE OTHERS, and the Netanyahu government. This is like equating Martin Luther King and Bull Conner. It’s also like equating Dick Cheney and the ACLU on the torture scandal.
Seventh–”Reform” as you and Bernstein call it could only mean that HRW should not cover Israel honestly and thoroughly. Rather than treating Israeli human rights abuses like those of any other nation, HRW should back off, at most diffidently stating that Israel’s record isn’t perfect, and maybe, when they have the time, they might want to look into one or two incidents. That’s not the job of a human rights organization. They aren’t supposed to make partisans like you and Bernstein happy. If they are honest and do a thorough job, they should expect to receive attacks like his and yours.
Anyway, Witty, this thread illustrates your method quite well and I expect nothing in the way of an honest response to the points above. You will just repeat your pious and totally substance free demand for reform. You have no facts–you just repeat baseless accusations over and over again in a calm tone, while your opponents get visibly angry at your extraordinary dishonesty. And then you congratulate yourself over your demeanor amongst the hotheads. Reform is something you should try–the gap between your self image as a rational person and your actual performance is immense.
Donald,
What a superb and devastating dissection of Witty, his ideology, his tactics and his arguments. You could not have summed up it up better.
Outstanding rebuttal!
Thanks, Shingo. It will bounce off the armor plate of Witty’s self regard. I assumed Witty would either ignore my seven points entirely, or just go back to repeating his standard talking points, probably in other part of this thread. So far he’s reacting according to type. Witty doesn’t do substance when there’s nothing substantive he can say for his side.
“starts using the word “we” halfway thru to identify with the IDF, as against Hamas and Hezbollah.”
He uses the word “we” to refer to non-guerilla armies (”we”) rather than the studied methodology that he describes earlier of social human shields.
Only a partisan, in solidarity with resistance (ruthless or noble) would confuse that language.
If the resistance is “ruthless”, are you in solidarity with that Phil? Do you have any qualms? Or, are you the equivalent of partisan supporter of the Irgun?
Spammer jammer, huh. That’s your new tactic. New topic after new topic after new topic? Just once I’d like you to address the fact that the only credible accusations about human shields being used are the ones that are sticking to Israel, Witty. Not Hamas and certainly not Hezbollah.
Your ignorant Chaos.
The reputation of social human shield is now tattooed on Hamas’ skin, by its own repeated action.
Witty, provide some sources that prove a systematic usage of human shields by Hamas. No one doubts that they have done them.
But so has Israel! So what’s the standard?
What’s the next step in thinking critical?
To talk about EXTENT. Hence, IS THERE SYSTEMATIC USAGE OF HUMAN SHIELDS?
What are the parameters?
Like for example, was there widespread human shielding by Hamas in Gaza in 2008’s massacre? FIND SOME PROOF!
You are a goddamn liar Witty. You once again have NO substantiated argument. Just more abstract ‘paternalistic myopia’ (thanks Jeff B.).
The only reason you’re allowed to continue to LIE here is because Phil is A) gives preferential treatment to Jewish fascists and racists while banning people who bash Jews or give off a hint of doing so and B) you’re Phil’s friend.
“The reputation of social human shield is now tattooed on Hamas’ skin, by its own repeated action.”
So basically, you are a fanatical Zionist. No evidence, no documentation, no reports… just your wild belief that it has to be the Palestinian faction that is “the evil.”
Israel broke the cease fire. Up until that point, Hamas conformed to it — even while Israel maintained its crushing total blockade. As Cliff keeps pointing out you have nothing.
Anyone else struck by the irony of Witty, metaphorically branding with a tattoo the dominant Palestinian faction in Israel’s largest concentration camp? It’s a bit breathtaking in the inadvertent poetry of Witty’s choice of imagery, isn’t it?
Breathtaking is probably not the phrase I would use. Mind numbing is probabyl more appropriate.
I suppose Witty has to refrain from arguing about literal human shields, seeing as the IDF have developed a taste for using them – Palstinian human shields – so his latest turn of phrase is social human shields.
His reference to tattoos has other conotations. It could be argued, for example, that Palestinian children burned by white phosphorous dumped on them by Isreal have been tattood in a sense, or should we say, branded?
Would you describe a country that not only subjects millions of ethnic “minorities” to interminable military rule, but also ranks in the bottom half of the world on press freedom, as an “open, democratic society”? Robert Bernstein would.
From the 2008 report.
Only peace protects freedoms in post-9/11 world
Published on 22 October 2008
It is not economic prosperity but peace that guarantees press freedom. That is the main lesson to be drawn from the world press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders compiles every year and from the 2008 edition, released today. Another conclusion from the index – in which the bottom three rungs are again occupied by the “infernal trio” of Turkmenistan (171st), North Korea (172nd) and Eritrea (173rd) – is that the international community’s conduct towards authoritarian regimes such as Cuba (169th) and China (167th) is not effective enough to yield results.”
PEACE PROTECTS FREEDOMS
Not war, not persecution, not solidarity, not “justice”, but PEACE
And you defend the pretext on which the Gaza offensive and the 2006 invasion of Lebanon were waged.
That makes you a flagrant hypocrite, Witty.
No, Witty, justice protects freedom. It’s what gives freedom its teeth.
For example, it is the law in the USA that protects American freedom. It is enshrined in law. And justice comes from law.
Meanwhile, Bernstein’s “democratic society” has sentenced Israeli dissident Ezra Nawi:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3793133,00.html
The Haaretz report on Nawi’s sentencing is beneath contempt (even worse in Hebrew than in English).
Judge Eilata Ziskind wrote in her ruling that “even if there is a supreme goal, it cannot be used as an excuse to commit offenses.”
She might as well be writing about Operation Cast Lead. The irony is positively galling.
Speaking of irony, another lead story on Ynet today:
Unlike Nawi, of course, whose brutal trumped up assault on those border policemen left the poor sods scarred for life.
Or how about the response to Nawi’s sentence from the “Yesha Human Rights Organization”? Never heard of them, but if they do actually exist, they are a living, breathing bitter irony, from the name up (down?).
Wow. Could the apartheid standard be any more blatant?
Like, maybe, the supreme goal of “defending ourselves?”
AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Kelly Blair
At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.
That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.
When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.
Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.
Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.
Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.
The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”
Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.
A cut and paste evangelization? Congratulations, Witty! You’ve officially ascended into second rate blog-troller heaven.
You can tell this guy has swallowed the Zionist koolaid when he starts spouting the standard hasbara about “human shields” and other lies. So much for credibility and integrity.
Its an invitation to respond to what was written, rather than to what is spun and exagerated.
“What was written” is lies and bullshit.
“But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes.”
That’s the modus operandi of Israel.
1. They bann foreign reporters from entering Gaza, in direct violation of their own Superme Court Ruling.
2. They refuse to partake in any investigtions.
3. They make sure such organisations have no direct access to the battlefield.
Then when investigations are held, they can dismiss the sources as being ureliable or biased because they came from eye witnesses.
Israel’s problem is that they were caught with the spotlight on them in Lebanon in 2006, so the world got a good look at what Israel are used to doing when they’re not being watched. They tried this stunt once too many times, and when the reports from Gaza are consistent with what Israel did in Southern Lebanon, then claiming that the sources are biased or unrealiable doessn’t wash.
Israel’s cover up is even more blatant when they even dismiss reports from IDF troops and being unrealiabble.
I can see that a dissenter could describe Bernstein’s comments as exagerated, but not as inconsequential or untrue even.
EVERY editorial statement, yours, mine, Phil’s, Bernstein’s, emphasizes what we consider important.
Bernstein is stating from my perspective, that the far left has become gullible and willingly manipulated by Hamas and other militants to emphasize the condemnatory spin on Israel/Palestinian politics.
He further states that that hinders Palestinians from proceeding on the path of assertive reconciliation.
On both points, I concur.
The word “lie” is an odd word. An opinion stated as an opinion is not a “lie”. A “lie” would include the misrepresentation of another’s comments.
Please go back and review your contentions of “lies” to review if you represented Bernstein or I accurately.
“For us/against us” aren’t the only options in discussion.
What a crushing blow to HRW. Sure the radical left will always support their anti Israel agenda, but they really amount to very little. This will open the eyes of everyone else. Then again, Roth can always send another delegation to Saudi Arabia for support.
And here you guys go again, neoconservatives and neoliberals trashing good old American progressivism — you know, the sort of stuff Benjamin Franklin originally wrote about. How patriotic of you guys, twisting Bernstein’s “pay to play” commentary into an partisan attack on the left. Looks especially good on you, Witty.
You derived a different message from the article?
Its a criticism of the far left’s willing carelessness, more than of the left perse.
Lies.
If a plague of perfect truthfulness should one day infect the human race, Israeli apologists would be unable to speak at all.
Gob-smacked by the inanity of this statement. Willingly manipulated by Hamas and other militants?
the far left has become gullible and willingly manipulated by Hamas and other militants to emphasize the condemnatory spin on Israel/Palestinian politics.
It’s pretty simple: the editorial was in reaction to the Goldstone report citing war crimes (and this ex-founder was saying Israel gets a pass because it’s a first world, not a third world country.) Left, far-left, center, and independent people reacted to watching images of inexplicable force applied to a people and civilians who weren’t even allowed to escape the carnage for three weeks. It was a massacre. No one manipulated anyone. Hamas militants manipulated the likes of those here on this board – oh yeah, we all speak Arabic here – into believing something untoward about the Israeli government and actions? You need your head read if you believe that.
Truly, it is enough to listen to the apologia of the Israeli leadership to find sufficient material to condemn.
But this is a typical tactic of the right, the smear-by-association. Hamas is evil. Therefore if you say the word “Hamas” often enough, the evil will spread and stick to whatever you want to condemn.
Without lies, the entire right wing would collapse like a punctured balloon.
One has to remember that it was not learned, educated, high-minded men who created Israel in 1948; they had no idea a nation could be tolerant and just. They were gangsters from Bialystock, with the exception of Ben Gurion, and Ben Gurion hated the lot of them. They marginalized Weitzman, he was out. Ben Gurion said in 1967 that if Menachem Begin became Prime Minister of Israel, “it would be the death of Israel.” And he may be proven right: that could well be the legacy of Begin and the Likudists.
The word “lie” refers to statements that aren’t true and are probably known to the speaker to be untrue. Bernstein knows his claims about HRW focusing mainly on Israel in the Mideast are untrue–he’s lying. He says HRW is partisan–he’s lying. HRW has put out damning reports on Hamas atrocities, for instance and they pretty much match reports on Israel with reports on its enemies. Bernstein says human rights groups focus on dictatorships and try to avoid moral equivalences between democracies and dictatorships. This is a lie because it has nothing to do with how HRW or AI try to do their job, in Bernstein’s day or today. (It’s also ironic, because he’s now rewriting history to make himself seem like a political hack back then. Americas Watch was much better than he makes it out to be–if they had behaved the way he claims they did they would have been the darlings of the Reagan Administration.) They focus on the crimes and who commits them, not on whether a country is a democracy and therefore “good”. As someone in the NYT letters pointed out, democracies have been guilty of genocide. Bernstein is exactly echoing the arguments that rightwingers have always made to defend atrocities committed by the US or one of its allies. These were the arguments made against HRW and AI during the 80’s by Reaganites. It is not the job of human rights organizations to make people like you and Bernstein feel good about themselves. I’ve made all these points before and you will continue to ignore them, because you are a troll. In fact, what you will do is continue to spout your BS, counting on the fact that nobody has the patience to repeatedly point out, in detail, all the things which are wrong with Bernstein’s piece and your defense. And you’re right. Your bull*** is wearing me out. This is classic troll behavior on your part.
In your case I think it’s sincere in a psychologically sick way. You are emotionally attached to a certain idealized view of Israel (the Israeli right serves as your scapegoat) and also to your self-image as a peacemaker among hotheads. You can’t back down on any fundamental point–you would no longer be the wise guru, but someone whose arguments consist of cliches repeated ad nauseam, until people just start shrieking at you in frustration because you won’t argue honestly. That’s what you are in reality, but you can never for a moment stare that reality in the face–it’s too painful. And the same for Israel. That’s why, when HRW puts out reports on both Hamas and Hezbollah and Israel about their war crimes, you eagerly leap to the conclusion that HRW needs reform, and the people who circle the wagons aren’t the ideologues trying to discredit the human rights groups–no, it is the human rights groups who are the bad guys. Because they make your own positions look hypocritical.
Whatever good intentions you have are subordinate to your narcissism. You want peace, but more than that, transcending that, you don’t want people questioning the basic moral narrative you’ve constructed for Israel, Zionism, and even yourself. This permeates everything you write. The only purpose you serve around here is one of bad example–you are the kind of person that would actively engage in destroying the reputation of a human rights group because you think their reports support the position of “the far left”, and the far left hurts Witty’s feelings.
Let’s have some frankness here. The “peace” that Israel and its apologists keep referring to is nothing more than Palestinian surrender. “Let’s have peace. We win, you lose. We take everything, you get nothing, and you’ll like it, or get worse.”
The Romans made a desert and called it peace. Israel is using the same definition.
The same definition, btw, fits the Israeli concept of “two-state solution,” which involves neither a real Palestinian state nor a real solution.
Everything you’ve written is fantastic, Donald. I saw in another comment that you are tempted to imitate Witty’s vaporous style. Please, oh please, do it. We need the laughs.
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/a-source-has-pa.html#comment-60125
More from the good old days:
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/one-state-schmoo-state-zionist-schmanti-zionist.html#comment-52699
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/05/walt-and-mearsh.html#comment-59721
former coMMenter,
Hilarious! I missed those the first time around. Classic!
Was that you Donald, Paz-Jew?
No Rich, that was me. We’ve had this conversation before. You’re getting old, your memory is deserting you, and your Zionism is calcifying.
It’s a bad combo, when one’s rational faculty is degenerating at the same time their zealous conviction is boiling over.
It’s probably why you prefer one sentence paragraphs.
And cryptic ones. Like “more is needed.”
So, you head-changing wonder, were Paz-Jew?
Comments on this entry are closed.