In follow up articles, Bernstein describes his admiration for HRW as a whole historically, though clearly less in the present. Even Phil’s reponse post (with exagerated headline) of Aryeh Neier, Bernstein’s successor is critical of Bernstein’s analysis but not dismissive and not insulting, as in “slop”.

Read the article again.

As, I take Goldstone’s report as an urging for the IDF to improve their performance, not to demean their mission or credit that they do deserve.

Some take Goldstone’s report as an attack on Israel, rather than a statement of opinion and information with which to improve.

I prefer the more charitable interpretation.

In one debate, he began with the debunked lie that Iran have threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
When corrected, he then argued that Iran is a threat becuase Amadinejad denies the Holocaust.
He then argued that the Iranian mullahs are religious fanatics believers in the 12th Imam and thus welcome the destion of their country so long as they take Israel down with them. When it was pointed out to him that George Bush told Haaretz that Gold told hiw to attack Iraq, he pretended that he couldn’t knwo for sure becasue he didn’t know Bush personally, yet he had never met Iran’s leaders either.
He made the lame argument that Iran should never be allowed to acquire a bomb, but refused to discuss Israel’s 200 nukes, most of which are aimed at Tehran.

Odd name-calling for a change, and odd description of a person. ”

The quote is wrong, but nevermind. I’m experimenting with new literary responses to your writing, Richard. The longwinded point-by-point rebuttal is wasted on you–you just ignore the points made by others, unless you can specifically refute them. So weird metaphors, poems (coMMenter wrote one), might be the way to go. I was thinking of writing some blank verse myself.

You were very clear. That’s what I was arguing against.

“Bernstein wrote of the presence and appearance of bias in the methodology and judgements of Human Rights Watch which diminished its veracity, its credibility. I supported that, also limited, contention.

Goldstone was saying to Hamas and Israel, “do a better job, a more lawful job”. Bernstein was saying to Human Rights Watch, “do a better job”.”

That’s not what Bernstein said, not in anything like that tone. He was attacking HRW’s credibility, accusing them of bias against Israel, proclaiming that there is no moral equivalence between dictatorships and democracies and in general repeating exactly the criticisms the Reagan people (like Elliot Abrams, who is still around) made of HRW when it criticized El Salvador’s record in the 80′s. His mission was to destroy the credibility of their critique of Israel’s war crimes and that is obvious to anyone who reads the column.

It’s exhausting debating you, because I made all these points and others in the linked thread and you totally ignore them and write about a Bernstein piece that only exists in your head. It’s why I lose my temper with you. It really is exactly like arguing with my creationist friend about evolution (something I have finally learned to stop doing).

Your following comment at least starts from a basis in reality, though you don’t acknowledge it as such. And the answer there is that it simply isn’t the job of any human rights organization to please people with ideological motivations for rejecting what they find. HRW is criticized by some on the pro-Palestinian side for being biased in favor of Israel–their argument, though wrong on ethics, at least starts from a correct factual premise–HRW tends to balance every report criticizing Israel with a report criticizing its enemies. They did this with the 2006 Lebanon War and they did it with Gaza, balancing criticisms of Israel with criticisms of Hamas and Hezbollah. That’s as it should be–that’s their job. The pro-Palestinian side thinks that because Israel kills far more people and is, in their view, the overall villain, so to speak, HRW should focus most of its attention on Israel. Now if they took that advice, it really would detract from their credibility. But at least they criticize HRW for what they actually do–the criticisms are grounded in fact, but come to a wrong conclusion because they want HRW to share their commitment, which is not the job of a human rights organization. But criticism from Bernstein means nothing, because his accusations were false and were clearly motivated by a desire to discredit HRW, which had the temerity to report on IDF crimes.

link to en.wikipedia.org

link to en.wikipedia.org

link to en.wikipedia.org

Wow, Witty. You’re the first “liberal” I’ve seen that has actually taken up Donald Rumsfeld’s famous “unknown unknowns” explanation.