Compared to how they treat Israel who takes great care in limiting casualties. Very telling. 

Sock puppets for terror

human rights watch

Elder of Ziyon has the scoop:

HRW deferential towards Saudi airstrikes that kill civilians

Here is how Human Rights Watch reported on the beginning of Israel’s airstrikes in Gaza last summer:

Israel/Palestine: Unlawful Israeli Airstrikes Kill Civilians
Bombings of Civilian Structures Suggest Illegal Policy

Israeli air attacks in Gaza investigated by Human Rights Watch have been targeting apparent civilian structures and killing civilians in violation of the laws of war. Israel should end unlawful attacks that do not target military objectives and may be intended as collective punishment or broadly to destroy civilian property. Deliberate or reckless attacks violating the laws of war are war crimes, Human Rights Watch said.

Prosecutor, judge and jury. Without any relevant information as to what Israel’s targets were, HRW flatly said that Israel was violating international law and said that Israel was targeting homes simply to kill Gazan civilians, apparently for kicks.

Now compare that with how HRW reports on Saudi airstrikes in urban areas that are killing scores of civilians:

Yemen: Saudi-Led Airstrikes Take Civilian Toll

The Saudi Arabia-led coalition of Arab countries that conducted airstrikes in Yemen on March 26 and 27, 2015, killed at least 11 and possibly as many as 34 civilians during the first day of bombings in Sanaa, the capital, Human Rights Watch said today. The 11 dead included 2 children and 2 women. Saudi and other warplanes also carried out strikes on apparent targets in the cities of Saada, Hodaida, Taiz, and Aden.

The airstrikes targeted Ansar Allah, the armed wing of the Zaidi Shia group known as the Houthis, that has controlled much of northern Yemen since September 2014.

…“Both the Saudi-led forces and the Houthis need to do everything they can to protect civilians from attack,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. “Reports of air strikes and anti-aircraft weapons in heavily populated areas raise serious concerns that not enough is being done to ensure their safety.”

Human Rights Watch has not been able to determine whether specific attacks complied with the laws of war, which apply to the armed conflict in Yemen. The laws of war prohibit attacks that target civilians or civilian property, or that do not or cannot discriminate between civilians and fighters.

More here at Elder of Ziyon

NOTE: Folks, it can’t get any plainer than that, HRW is a highly politicized organization that takes great effort in smearing the Jewish state any which way it can.


My exchange with Amnesty’s Director of the Middle East and Africa reveals the exact same thing here. He couldn’t handle the heat and took for the hills.
— TundraTabloids (@KEGS59) March 3, 2015

US generals criticize Amnesty and HRW in new report on Gaza war

JINSA commissioned several retired generals to assess Operation Protective Edge. Their report stands in stark contrast to the biased reports written by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

The generals are:

General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.),
Task Force Chair Former Deputy Commander of United States European Command

Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell IV, USA (ret.)
Former Commander, U.S. Army North 

Lieutenant General Richard Natonski, USMC (ret.)
Former Commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Command 

Major General Rick Devereaux, USAF (ret.)
Former Director of Operational Planning, Policy, and Strategy – Headquarters Air Force 

Major General Mike Jones, USA (ret.)
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command

The authors know the Laws of Armed Conflict far better than the NGOs do. They recognize Hamas’ unique tactics of cynically putting their own civilian population in danger in order to add a public relations dimension to what they call “unrestricted warfare”:

In 1999, two Chinese People’s Liberation Army officers asserted  that the ability to blend technologies with military actions and political-influence activities, a technique they dubbed “unrestricted warfare,” signifies a new type of war, in which a key principle is “no longer using armed force to compel the enemy to one’s will, but rather, using all means, military and nonmilitary, lethal and non-lethal, to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.”97 In the 2014 Gaza War,

Hamas appears to have pursued precisely such unrestricted warfare. Their concept of operations aimed to force Israel into making concessions – such as reopening Gaza’s borders – as a result of political pressure. What was novel about Hamas’s approach, however, was where and how they sought to create that pressure. A key vulnerability for liberal democracies, such as the United States or Israel, is their citizens’ aversion to excessive or unjustified casualties. Though voters are willing to support wars – and casualties – that are perceived as legitimately defending the homeland or securing vital national interests, popular support for military operations can decline when these goals begin to be doubted or overshadowed by deaths of civilians from the opposing side and, especially, of their own soldiers. …

More here.



As someone who has followed the anti-Israel activities of these various pseudo ”human rights” organizations, such as HRW and Amnesty International and Beit Selem, it’s hard not to notice that their emphasis isn’t really on human rights per say, but on a Leftist political agenda with a desired anti-Israel outcome.

These fake human rights orgs, ( that’s what they are, fakes) are forced time and again to retract statements, correct reports, etc. etc., due to other organizations such as NGO Monitor, who point out their gross biases against Israel and outright falsifications.

In a saner world where a professional media existed, these organizations would be treated in a different fashion, with a stiff arm. They’d be forced to prove their statistics and claims on a regular basis, instead of being given the red carpet treatment that they now enjoy. Today’s journalists are just not inquisitive or interested enough to dig deeper into these organizations, they just repeat like trained parrots what they’re handed.

NOTE: This interview with Prof. Gerald Steinberg  appeared in Israel National News and republished here with the author’s consent.

Steinberg (1)


Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Gerald Steinberg

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldAmong Israel’s many attackers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the least subject to external monitoring. These anti-Israel NGOs claim to promote human rights and humanitarian aid, yet are characterized by a lack of professionalism and a post-colonial ideological agenda. In some cases, theological anti-Semitism is an additional factor.

The research organization NGO Monitor has documented anti-Israel acts for a number of major NGOs in detail. This includes the Israel-related activities of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, Christian Aid, and many other organizations.”

Professor Gerald Steinberg teaches political science and international relations at Bar Ilan University. He has headed NGO Monitor since its founding in 2002. It is the only independent research framework which systematically examines the claims, and challenges the power of the NGO political network.

Steinberg says: “One can monitor the bias of NGOs objectively. One quantitative method is counting the number of pages, individual reports, press conferences and other similar measures over the past decade devoted to various subjects. The research shows a huge discrepancy between the frequent condemnations of Israel and lesser attention paid to closed dictatorial regimes, or to other countries involved in violent conflicts.

There are also qualitative methods. Anti-Israel NGOs prefer to use a certain language to attack Israel. This includes terms such as ‘war crimes,’ ‘collective punishment,’ ‘impunity’ and so on. They use these much less against other countries. This highlights the violation of universal principles of human rights by these NGOs.

Groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, (HRW) Oxfam and various church-based international aid groups based in Europe are very well funded. They therefore exercise much political power. These NGOs are also the worst offenders of the moral principles they falsely claim to promote. HRW hired people to run its Middle East and North Africa division who are profoundly stained by a history of crude anti-Israel bias. NGO Monitor has documented this frequently.

These NGOs have taken over major international platforms in the spheres of human rights and humanitarian aid. Many European governments outsource these activities by providing large sums of money, with little supervision over private ‘charities’ and NGOs. In addition, journalists, academics and other members of the ‘foreign policy elite’ are often closely involved with such organizations, or accept their claims and agendas without question. In 2002, Amnesty ‘expert’ Derek Pounder told the BBC that he could confirm a huge Jenin ‘massacre’ committed by the Israeli Defense Forces. The myth he created was only exposed after it had been repeated hundreds of times and the damage to Israel was done.

Furthermore, diplomats and politicians in the United Nations often abdicate their responsibility in dealing with complex human rights claims to NGOs. They rely on them for drafts of speeches, reports and other services. One particularly egregious case was the 2009 Goldstone report on the Gaza war. Journalists often tend to copy NGO press releases without any independent examination of the factual claims or pseudo-legal arguments.

In the most blatant cases of NGO bias against Israel, there are four factors. First, officials at the head of international NGOs are often tainted by a strong anti-Western post-colonial ideology. Since 1967, they have assigned Israel to the nationalist and capitalist Western camp, which is by definition, guilty. A second reason why NGOs focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it is ever-present in the media. This helps their marketing strategy by giving them visibility in the competition for funds and influence.

A third factor is that the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva is controlled by Arab and Islamic blocs. To be seen as having influence there, NGOs must toe the ‘political line,’ which means an intense anti-Israel position. The fourth factor is classic Christian theological anti-Semitism and replacement theology. These are prominent in U.K.-based NGOs such as War on Want, Christian Aid, and Amnesty. They are also found in the activities of church-based humanitarian aid groups in Scandinavia and Ireland.

These powerful organizations are difficult to defeat. Yet NGO Monitor has shown in a number of important cases that success is possible. To mention a few examples: In 2009, our detailed refutation of unfounded NGO allegations at the core of the Goldstone report led its author to disavow his own publication. HRW founder Robert Bernstein denounced this organization after NGO Monitor systematically exposed the deeply biased agenda of its Middle East and North Africa Division and HRW’s efforts to raise money from members of the Saudi elite while ignoring that regime’s severe human rights abuses.

Furthermore, NGO Monitor’s reports on the destructive contribution from funders of these organizations – such as the New Israel Fund and European governments – have led them to gradually end their support for the most egregious NGOs involved in Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as well as other hate-based activities against Israel. Similar monitoring is or could be applied to many other Israel-hate organizations outside of the NGO field.”



HRW is the only ‘human rights organization’ that I know that fund raises (and here) in totalitarian regimes.

H/T: Donny Kligman

HRW: Iran’s statements not incitement to genocide

12/08/2012 20:16

Human Right Watch leader refuses to label calls to erase Israel; compares mullah’s remarks to those of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.


WASHINGTON – The head of New York-based Human Rights Watch refused to label as genocidal Iranian calls to obliterate the Jewish state and compared Iran’s mullah leadership to the Shas party.

The Wall Street Journal’s David Feith, as assistant editorial features editor with the paper, obtained internal HRW emails and published last week a report, headlined “Dancing around genocide,” about alleged HRW bias against Israel and an internecine conflict within HRW’s top leadership about the group’s head, Kenneth Roth, and his failure to take Iran’s calls to destroy Israel seriously.

The Journal reported that Sid Sheinberg, HRW’s vice chairman, wrote in an email, “Sitting still while Iran claims a ‘justification to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel’ is…a position unworthy of our great organization.”

According to the newspaper, Roth wrote in one email, “Many of [Iran’s] statements are certainly reprehensible, but they are not incitement to genocide. No one has acted on them.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” while former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has openly contemplated firing a nuclear missile at Tel Aviv.

Roth told the Journal that, although a committee may look into Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric, he believes the country is not inciting genocide against the Jewish state. Instead, he argued, the push to label Tehran’s calls for Israel’s destruction as genocidal is “part of an effort to beat the war drums against Iran.”

In an email to The Jerusalem Post on Saturday, Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg, the head of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, wrote, “This is a blatant example of Roth’s indifference to genocidal threats and human rights abuses when these target Israel.”

“Roth, who has controlled Human Rights Watch since 1996, has consistently demonstrated a obsession with attacking the Jewish state, and the people he selected to lead HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division are also infected with this deep bias,” Steinberg wrote.

“While Gaddafi was ranting against the Zionists, HRW embraced the regime as ‘human rights reformers.’ HRW’s studied silence in the face of Iran’s genocidal threats further demonstrates this organization’s moral bankruptcy.”

Steinberg added that “George Soros, who now provides HRW with most of its budget after many donors withdrew support, shares responsibility for enabling such immoral behavior under the facade of human rights.”

More here.

Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia…….

Pseudo human rights org.
trashes Israel in the land of Saud

Kenneth Roth:
Soliciting funds in Saudi Arabia, goes hand in hand
with our biased agenda towards the state of Israel

These maroons who market themselves as a ‘human rights monitoring group’ show just how much they care about human rights, with their hat in hand trip to one of the worst human rights violating states on the planet. Human Rights Watch’s credibility should be undermined by their fund raising trip to Saudi Arabia, but sadly it won’t be, at least not in Europe, seeing that key European states are funding that “supposed” NGO.

The whole situation stinks, with this “supposed” non-governmental organization being on the take from European governments (who are not only pro-Arab), but also soliciting funds from the House of Saud while they rake Israel over the coals with highly ludicrous claims by a handful of traitorous IDF soldiers who have an axe to grind.

Using reports from the Leftist organization “Breaking the Silence”, (which consists of disfranchised IDF stooges for Arab propaganda), Human Rights Watch wages a campaign against the Jewish state of Israel for its defensive campaign in Gaza earlier this year, in Operation Cast Lead. A senior Israeli security official stated that the report by BS, was in fact BS, or Bull Sh*t for those of you who aren’t familiar with the letters.

The Breaking the Silence report was for the most part based on hearsay and rumor, and not facts, the senior security official said“.

The same report which I will be posting below, also states that the BS organization is receiving funds from the British, the Dutch and from the European Union. What a racket they all have going for themselves, anti-Israel states fund anti-Israel organizations for reports that they use to lambaste Israel for in the international media and in political conferences. No doubt “political analysts” from, ahem……. local Finnish think tanks, will use their material as well.

Tundraman, a TT co-contributor, informs that the Finnish state broadcaster issued a report a few days ago by its key journalist, Sanna Negus (long time TT readers are familiar with her name, she’s a Finnish activist journalist operating out of Cairo who disseminates Arab propaganda for the Finnish broadcaster), who relied heavily on the BS report.

Tundraman:I happened to hear Sanna Negus’ report in YLE this morning on the report mentioned below. She took it as 100% true, no official response to it was even mentioned, she interviewed extensively both Saul and the soldiers, said that “now, finally can their own voices be heard” and that “some of them even show their faces”. She concluded by saying that “their testimony cannot be discarded with just one sentence”.

Compare that with the news item which says that “None of the soldiers were identified, and no dates or locations were provided for the events they recount.” and you realize just how much Finnish media are willing to LIE about Israel for political purposes without anybody or anything seeming to be able to stop them.”

That’s the way it works, especially here in Finland, with hack journalists with an axe to grind, looking between their fingers at ideologically motivated reports that are highly negative of Israel (read = swallowing whole), while treating Israeli governmental sources as “suspect”.

(While Soldiers Speak Out testimonies were given by soldiers who used their full names and identified themselves, the Breaking the Silence videos were given anonymously, and soldiers’ faces were blurred.)

Europeans funding ‘Breaking the Silence’

A day after releasing a damning report on Operation Cast Lead, and amid accusations that it is operating without transparency, the group Breaking the Silence on Thursday presented The Jerusalem Post with its donor list for the year 2008, which included several European governments.

On Wednesday, Breaking the Silence released a report including testimonies from 26 unnamed soldiers who participated in the campaign and which claimed that the IDF used Gazans as human shields, improperly fired incendiary white phosphorous shells over civilian areas and used overwhelming firepower that caused needless deaths and destruction.

On Thursday, military sources and NGO Monitor – a Jerusalem-based research organization – raised suspicions regarding Breaking the Silence’s setup as a nonprofit limited company and not an amuta, or nonprofit organization. The difference is that an amuta is required by law to publicly declare the identity of its donors. A limited company is not always required to do so.

“From our work, going through the files of dozens of Israeli nonprofits, we feel that groups like this that are not listed [as an amuta] raises a lot of red flags,” said Prof. Gerald Steinberg, the head of NGO Monitor.

In response to the claims, Breaking the Silence presented the Post with its donor list for 2008. The British Embassy in Tel Aviv gave the organization NIS 226,589; the Dutch Embassy donated €19,999; and the European Union gave Breaking the Silence €43,514.

The NGO also received funding from the New Israel Fund amounting to NIS 229,949.

In 2007, Breaking the Silence received a total of NIS 500,000, and in 2008 it managed to raise NIS 1.5 million.

We have nothing to hide,” said Yehuda Shaul, one of the heads of Breaking the Silence. “We are open to complete transparency and are prepared to share this information with the public.”

Yeah riiiiiiiiight Yehuda, I remember your nonsense that you pedaled to the willingly gullible Helsingin Sanomat last December (08), it seems that you haven’t lost your nack for lying. KGS