An important piece. A paradigm shift on Israel/Palestine is taking place, spurred by Gaza/Goldstone/Netanyahu, and common sense, too; and where is the New York Times? It is fighting the shift. It published a disastrously influential piece by former Human Rights Watch boss Robert Bernstein, trashing Goldstone. Here is Aryeh Neier in Huffpo taking on his former boss on the crucial questions:
Though Bernstein is right to differentiate between closed and open societies, he is wrong to suggest that open societies should be spared criticism for human rights abuses. The United States was an open society when it practiced slavery and racial segregation and when it interred the Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was an open society when it tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A human rights organization that keeps silent on such matters would be worthless. The only way to protect human rights is to hold all to the same standards. Robert Bernstein knew that when he asked me to join him in founding Helsinki Watch. He seems to have forgotten.
The claim that HRW focuses disproportionately on Israel is simply mistaken. When I was Executive Director, we began our work on the Middle East by publishing a book length report on abuses in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. We also reported on Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region. Currently, reporting on abuses by others constitutes about 85 percent of Human Rights Watch’s publishing on the region. That reporting on Israel accounts for as much as 15 percent of the organization’s work in the Middle East reflects Israel’s involvement in armed conflicts, a specialty of Human Rights Watch.
The distinction Bernstein makes between "wrongs committed in self-defense and those committed intentionally" is not made by the laws of war. It is also a dangerous distinction. On such grounds, groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq that murdered tens of thousands of civilians after the American invasion of 2003 could claim excuses for their crimes. In Gaza, both sides might claim self-defense and, thereby, justify abuses.
I’m glad to see that Huffpo is still open enough to publish Neier’s piece. This is getting close to the claim that “Arabs have the right to defend themselves.”
There is so much that is in error, or plainly dishonest, in Bernstein’s piece that has been gone through before on this site. Re-reading the article though, I noticed this gem:
Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.
In reality it is the self-identified ‘open societies’ which have ‘cast aside’, or more accurately suspended, the distinction. A government that intentionally leads a country into war on false pretenses, and simultaneously suspends constitutional protections as a necessary evil in the process, is not an open society. When Justice Department officials conclude that their boss can order the mutilation of children to prosecute that war, those officials do not operate in an open society. When people are hustled into a white van, never to be seen again, and the Executive declines comment, there is no open society.
Good observation, Marc.
Neier doesn’t call Bernstein’s contentions “slop”. He attempts to address them, though still “proving” by referring to his experiences as executive director, also not in the very recent period.
Bernstein’s impressions, his interpretations, may be incorrect or partially correct, but the dismissal and contempt of his statements is more partisan than reflective and related to the defense of the Goldstone report as authority, rather than only of relative information value. Still important, but not authority.
The Goldstone report wasn’t put out by HRW. HRW put out reports on Israeli violations in Gaza and they also put out reports on Hamas killings under the cover of war–you might have even cited that report, Witty, because I remember you citing one of the human rights groups on that subject earlier this year. The Goldstone Report and HRW’s reporting and Amnesty International’s reporting and B’Tselem’s reporting and the reporting of Palestinian groups as well as the reports of news organizations all say much the same thing regarding what Israel did in Gaza. There is no serious doubt on this, just the carping of dishonest critics motivated by ideology. Bernstein’s criticisms deserve contempt because they are factually wrong,written in obvious bad faith, make stupid and reflect the sorts of criticisms defenders of abusive governments always utter. Bernstein and Elliot Abrams were on opposite sides of the human rights divide in the 80′s–now they are soulmates, as Bernstein has moved over into the Abrams camp.
The contention of the criticism of the Bernstein op-ed was that it was timed to dismiss the Goldstone report and all human rights investigations.
Bernstein himself stated that the left’s language about the Goldstone report (authority, not opinion, not information) and the uses of that authority (condemnation and demonization, not inquiry, not proportion, not context) motivated his writing of the op-ed.
He’s got a point. Its not authority, just information.
Neier doesn’t call Bernstein’s contentions “slop”.
Why the quotation marks? Who said he did? You are simultaneously associating Neier with resort to the pejorative while attempting to rehabilitate Bernstein by referring to the non-existent pejorative.
He attempts to address them, though still “proving” by referring to his experiences as executive director, also not in the very recent period.
Neier’s proof does not rely upon his qualifications, and it is disengenuous to imply that the date of his resignation from that post has anything to do with the force of his arguments in this context.
Phil called it “slop”.
As he’s doing again in this headline.
I don’t see the word “slop” anywhere in the headline. And, no, all that is ‘worthless’ is not excremental. I also don’t see your point. Neier expressly calls Bernstein’s arguments “dangerous”. Which description is more damning?
“…all that is ‘worthless’ is not excremental,” except for Witty’s “contributions”…lol
Phil called it “slop”. No, he didn’t, RW. But it does underscore your lack of exactitude and professionalism in quoting people, or being able to understand what they wrote. You extrapolate, which is dishonest.
Malignant Gods! They impregnate from afar, but with fungi. Beware, once your innocent eye scans a line, your mind will become a sort of mold.
Wow,
Way to cherry pick aspects out of that Op-Ed and leave out the crux of his argument. Whats new I guess.
Not that you have anything that actually backs that statement up, of course.
Aryeh Neier is one of the great heroes of our time, and he and his family are refugees from the Nazis. I met him in El Salvador in 1984, where he was courageously looking into the crimes of the U.S.-backed military government there. The idea that he –then or now –focused predominately or unfairly on Israel is ludicrous.
To Richard Witty: You regularly insist on calm, reasonable discussion instead of hysteria and name-calling. In the main, I agree with you.
So here’s an example. Robert Bernstein criticized Human Rights Watch. You expressed some sympathy, insisting that he be heard. Aryeh Neier has provided you with exactly the kind of response that you say you yearn for.
So now you can consider both sidea of this particular question. What do you think? Is Bernstein right, or Neier right? (They can’t both be.) Of course, you, I, or anyone else can revise our opinion in light of new evidence, but for now, what do you think?
I found that they both can be right.
Bernstein stated his opinion that HRW had adopted a partisan approach, and that that diminished the degree of confidence that the world has in it. He stated that his criticism applied to both their methodology (selection of what to investigate, how to investigate, how to verify) and in their appearance (how to report and how to publicize).
For an auditor, both the methodology and the appearance are critical as the value that they bring to the world is the degree of confidence that a reader of their report can derive from THEIR being the author.
HRW needed to address both aspects of the criticism, the confidence in the methodology, and the confidence in the manner of reporting and publicity.
Their audience is intentionally more than the limited community of dissenters that are not particularly skeptical of their methodology (I would say prejudicially).
Aryeh Neier confirmed that HRW’s reputation is important, and that from his also not current read of administration, he was confident in their performance of their role.
I take them as two opinions. I can’t confidently say one way or another. I don’t think Phil can.
Both can definitely be right. Bernstein can be accurate that HRW engages in some bias, and Neier can be right that they provide relevant information to those that desire to improve their ethical and legal application.
Richard: You are wriggling. We are not talking about an audit here.
Let’s just take one example. Aryeh writes, “The distinction Bernstein makes between “wrongs committed in self-defense and those committed intentionally” is not made by the laws of war. It is also a dangerous distinction.”
Either Bernstein is right or Aryeh is right. (Remember: 1400 Palestinian people, including hundreds of children, are already dead.)
Bernstein? Or Aryeh?
Voila! Les Champignons du tete! Get this man an MRI of his skull, stat!
James,
I’m going to continue to wriggle on this one, because I trust both men, and don’t know enough from my own experience to choose my “mate” without meeting them both.
You really think that their impressions are either/or? One OR the other?
Why?
I agree that the wrongs during war are unequivocally wrongs. The question is how to change the wrongs, and remedy. I like the Goldstone recommendation that the purpose of the report is primarily for information to stimulate and guide internal investigation, moreso than criminal trial.
And, I agree with Bernstein that the first place to look when one’s reputation is tarnished is at content. IF, one is genuinely confident in the methodology and process, not spinning but actually confident, then one can undertake damage control also confidently.
There is an inference of contempt for Bernstein, that he is deliberately misrepresenting to shield a bias. Neier was careful NOT to imply that of Bernstein, instead disagreeing but not maligning. Phil was not that careful.
Perhaps Bernstein is correct in the sense that this is what he practiced (his accusations of HRW) when he was in office. That is, constantly referring to Israeli “self-defense” when it was nothing but targeted brutality. I mean, there are not many other conclusions you can draw from Bernstein’s current atrocious behavior.
As an example from fact (what Bernstein wrote) –
“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.”
However, on the contrary, Israel has continued a “practice” which has done nothing but intensified (see Operation Cast Lead). Which of the atrocities from the beginning, against the Palestinians, have ceased?
“Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.”
No, the “open” societies have made themselves barely distinguishable from “closed” societies. Not just recently, but historically. What kind of a statement is this, which ignores reality?
“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. ”
He writes this with no causal proviso – how did these governments arise, and how are they maintained? By the direct influence of those wonderful and magnanimous “open” societies as puppet (client) regimes. Who is it that has become the ringleader watchdog of western hegemony which has helped to start and maintain these Horrid governments (?) – Israel.
“Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes…”
Oh yes, do not miss the talking point of Iran Mr Bernstein, that opportunity to vilify, but forget how this country’s current government can into being (can you say the “Shah,” and all the attended exploitation and barbarity?).
I don’t think anything else has to be pointed out (and there is much more in this article), is Bernstein running for an office in the ADL?
Neier did a pretty good job dismantling Bernstein’s accusations of bias, including percentages on just how many reports HRW does on Israel — 15 percent of the total with respect to the Mideast and it is that high because of Israel’s wars. And any casual reader of the HRW website already knows that they generally pair their critiques of Israel with a critique of its enemies. They criticized Israel for its conduct in the 2006 Lebanon War and they also criticized Hezbollah. In Gaza they criticized Israel and also Hamas–they also had a report out early this year about Hamas violations against other Palestinians. In fact, HRW is sometimes criticized by pro-Palestinian activists for false balance precisely because of this. I disagree with that criticism, because a human rights group should not be in the business of favoring one side, but should just report the facts as it finds them. But at least the pro-Palestinian critics accurately describe what HRW actually does. Bernstein is just a liar. He presumably knows many people who read his column have never read an online HRW report. They might think that the NYT fact checks its op ed contributors and believe him, or they might want to believe him.
And as I’ve pointed out several times, the irony is that when Bernstein was head of HRW the exact same sorts of criticisms were made of HRW by the Reagan Administration and its defenders–they weren’t supposed to criticize El Salvador and our other allies so harshly because the “West” was good and noble and self-critical and so on. Nevermind the self-contradiction–HRW was engaged in precisely that fairminded investigation of human rights violations that was supposed to make the West morally superior.
I found a google book connection to what Bernstein was saying back in those days. Basically, he’s slandering his old self. He wasn’t the hack back in the 80′s that he makes himself out to be now. He knew the job of a human rights group was to criticize human rights violations and he despised the lies told by the Reaganites. But I’ll have to find that reference and post a link later, maybe tomorrow if I have time. (Or not.) Anyway, he has now become the sort of critic he used to fight against. It’s sad to see.
Actually, the link was easy to find–
link
While Bernstein ran the show was there ever a substantial criticism of Israel Donald? Because we all know these activities did not just start recently.
Richard: I’m afraid you are still being evasive. I asked you to weigh Aryeh’s specific responses to Bernstein’s specific charges. Here’s another example.
Aryeh writes: “It is true, of course, that there was no access to Gaza while the conflict was underway. Denial of access was the policy of the Israeli government. As should be obvious, such a policy should not be rewarded by silence. If a government could eliminate human rights reporting in this manner, HRW would never have published accounts of abuses in Saddam’s Iraq. Moreover, in the Gaza case, HRW had a consultant there throughout the conflict and sent in a research team three days after hostilities ended. Though witness testimony is often self-serving, it plays a crucial role in judicial determinations of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cross-checking the details of testimony and consistency with other evidence are essential. HRW has an immense amount of experience in all parts of the world in fact-gathering and getting the story right. That is why its reporting matters.”
Do you have new information about how Human Rights Watch functions that would corroborate Bernstein and undercut Aryeh’s point? Do you deny, as Donald reminds us, that Aryeh also demolishes Bernstein’s argument that HRW pays too much attention to Israel?
You point out that Aryeh himself makes no personal criticisms of Bernstein, so there’s no need for you to get into personalities.
So I ask you again: On the substantive questions that Bernstein raises and Aryeh answers, which one of them is right?
The reason I asked this Donald is that I have been through the “Middle East Watch” of HRW from its beginning reports published, till the time Bernstein stepped aside, and I do not see any substantial criticism of Israel. Of course, I am speaking in the narrow sense we are talking about now, in regard to wanton violence against the Palestinians (plenty on the bombings of the Palestinians inside Israel). Perhaps we do not have the reports exhaustively listed on their site?
V–
I don’t know. That’s the short answer. Here’s the long one– I am trying to remember when I started paying attention to HRW’s reporting on Israel and my memory is hazy before 2006 (when they did a good job on Lebanon). Actually, come to think of it they did a good job in the heavy fighting in the West Bank during 2002, which included Jenin. The initial rumors (one of them started by an Israeli general) was that hundreds had died, but after about a week or two it was clear there was no evidence for that and the hasbara brigade starting crowing that there was no massacre. HRW and other human rights groups did a careful investigation and found that about 50 Palestinians died, roughly half of them civilians, and some of these were war crimes. They were explicit about this. I do remember HRW doing that. But in the 90′s I have no recollection. It was harder for me (and most people) to do internet searches then. I have seen a pretty good report from HRW on the US bombing of civilian infrastructure during the Gulf War in 1991, which was written in 1992, but I think I found that much later, in the late 90′s or early 2000′s (maybe in the runup to the Iraq War). I don’t think I was looking for their material on Israel back then –I was reading people like Fisk and Jonathan Randal and Chomsky and Finkelstein and a few others, so I knew Israel was doing bad things, but can’t recall if Middle East Watch investigated them then.
Actually, you can go to their website and do searches for old material, though right now (as of yesterday anyway) their own search engine was down–they’re doing work on it I think. I’ve found interesting stuff that way, including reports on Turkish atrocities against the Kurds (mentioned by Chomsky) and that Gulf War aerial bombing study I mentioned.
Donald, perhaps what is disturbing Bernstein is that “he” never went this in depth into Israel’s activity of violence against the Palestinians? Of course, I might be wrong because these papers may not represent the sum total of the “Middle East Watch (during the time frame that Bernstein was in charge).” Sometimes the essence of honesty is questioned by silence (purposefully blocking out, which can be both conscious and unconscious), and by what and how something is covered in a given instance. Note that I am being very particular, to the point of the subject – in other words, covering other abuse in other parts of the Middle East (which is what Bernstein seems to be opining for) in this instance is quite beside the specific point or thrust of my query.
Correcting a possible misunderstanding–hundreds of Palestinians did die in the West Bank fighting in 2002, but not hundreds at Jenin.
I understand your interest, V–I’d like to know myself what Middle East Watch did with respect to Israel under Bernstein, but don’t know.
James,
Israel can (and did) obstruct investigations, AND HRW can still be biased in its methodology.
The two do not prove or disprove the other.
James,
I thought that I was clear that I do not have information sufficient to judge whether Neier OR Bernstein is writing “slop”. I don’t see it in those terms, either/or.
I take both author’s comments as information. As, I take the reports as information.
I hope you acknowledge that the degree that the organizations can be relied on for non-biased reporting is a critical factor in how authoritatively (an intrinsically relative term) their assertions can be regarded. IF their methodology is potentially criticized as partison, then their work can be dismissed, always noted as biased.
There is a flip side with their reputation. That is that at some point in the future, they may turn their light on some behavior that you or I do, or someone that we support.
Its like law. As, it will at some point in the future apply to you, it is important that it be and appear as free from prejudice as possible.
Like the childhood exercise of dividing a cupcake. “I cut. You get to choose which half.”
Israel’s response to the reports though has been jaded. Rather than respond, “thank you for the information that we can use to improve our function”, Israel responded with a shoot the messenger approach.
The structure of UN resolution yesterday that is worded as endorsement of the Goldstone report, only has any means to hold Israel accountable judicially, while Hamas is immune, so even if the wording of the Goldstone report is more balanced, the necessarily non-biased accountability would not be.
Its a problem. Inherent with the opportunistic militia status of Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Just to clarify, I, like Bernstein, applaud the concerted effort to investigate fully and in a non-biased manner to the significant extent that it occurs.
Richard: More evasion, I’m afraid.
First, neither I nor Aryeh Neier used the word “slop,” so why do you bring it up?
Second, you answer my practical question with theoretical observations. You write, for instance, that “the degree that the organizations can be relied on for non-biased reporting is a critical factor in how authoritatively (an intrinsically relative term) their assertions can be regarded.” This is of course obvious to anyone.
But we are dealing with an actual example here. Bernstein said Human Rights Watch is biased about Israel. Aryeh said it isn’t, and presented evidence. He got very specific, pointing out the percentage of HRW reports on Israel vs the rest of the Mideast (and the world), and explaining precisely how the organization gathered information in Gaza.
One of them is right, and one is wrong.
But you still refuse to choose.
Well, after reading a number of reports on Israel during Bernstein watch, and they are few, they deal in very general terms about Israel. Whereas there is a mention in general about what was happening to the Palestinians (in these few instances), there is nothing specific which deals with the gross examples – no horrific particulars. It leaves me with the impression that Bernstein’s present “defense” of Israel currently is just an extension of his practice while heading HRW – a sort of cover up by intermittent coverage, and very general specifics which wash over the terrible activity.
A sort of “coverage” of land mark oppression of the Palestinians which could not be ignored (without exposing his deep underlying prejudice), and that very general lacking specifics. It seems to take as its assumptive background what I would call the Bernard Lewis school of “thought,” with the design of vilification of the Middle Eastern “other.” That is because when you enumerate the whole in the sense of what he covered in the ME it gives the impression by the concentration on Israel’s surrounding countries (and beyond) with numerous specifics (minus the background and their current status as client nations), and than fail to do the same with Israel it skews the vision. I can elaborate with specifics if you like.
Whereas Neier deals with the specifics of Bernstein’s charges he does not go into the specifics of a critique of the whole of HRW’s activity in this region under his leadership. I do not necessarily blame him, who wants to unearth these specifics when one was a participant in the organization (Neier). Just as Lewis was the founder of MESA and now opposes it because of the devastating critique of Dr. Edward Said’s Orientalism, and he is now at odds with MESA – so Bernstein finds himself at odds with the pendulum swing back Israel and its numerous atrocities. Hopefully we will not see Bernstein act the same way as Lewis who is trying to create an entire other “school of Middle Eastern studies” with an entirely new human rights organization – we will have to wait and see.
Hey, no problem; let’s just say everybody’s right, OK?
link to theyeshivaworld.com
This all just gets better and better:
link to myfoxdc.com
The USA better start separating itself from Zionism, Wall Street, and the Military Industrial Complex. I heard corporate executives and congressmen were going to start filling in for all our troops set to go on their 6th cenic tour overseas. Gonna give those indentured servants a break. More to come. Even Fannie and Freddie Mac want to help.See you at K Mart.
“The United States was an open society when it practiced slavery and racial segregation and when it interred the Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was an open society when it tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib. ”
It was also an open society when it discriminated against German Americans as prelude and attendant to WW1; Streicheresqe MSM was everywhere and that large portion of our nation at the time were reduced to hateful cartoons and never recovered; to this day they are silent. Their disproportionate deaths fighting Hitler has mean nothing. Nobody knows about their culture’s contribution for generations towards western civilization–only about 1939 -1945, Similarly, the USA practiced discrimination against and interred (especially) German and Italian Americans during WW2 and after. Presently, nothing is really being done to punish or deter government spying on any Americans thought to be pro-arab or “anti-semitic.”
has meant nothing
Open society? Only open for Jews.
Even the US State Dept says so:
link to haaretz.com
I guess there are some things lobbyist money can’t buy.
Just loopholes to plug with cash.
You’ve gotten cynical, potsherd. Take the minor victories where they are… even if they are Pyrrhic. I take some heart in the fact that the facts are documented, even if they aren’t actually acted upon by our government.
I hatched cynical, Chaos, out of a cynical egg.
But I agree, the State Dept report is a minor victory, in that it can be quoted authoritatively to refute mendacious Zionist claims.