The Israeli Defense Forces recently concluded
a report on the tragic deaths of seven Palestinians on a Gaza Beach. As detailed
yesterday in HR's special report "Gaza
Beach Libel", the IDF has carefully analyzed all evidence and proven that it
was not responsible for this tragedy.
In the past 24 hours, our report has generated
over 500 letters to the media. While some news organizations have
reported the IDF findings, it certainly does not compensate for the highly
emotive front page
initial accusations.
At the same time, many in the media have been quoting Human Rights Watch (HRW)'s
military "expert" Marc Garlasco. Garlasco was one of the authors of HRW's
controversial study "Razing Rafah." The study is based on unverifiable
Palestinian allegations and unsubstantiated security judgments. This "academic" study
claimed that "the IDF actions destroyed over 50 percent of Rafah's roads and
elements of its water, sewage, and electrical systems" based on a combination of
Palestinian "eye-witnesses" and sympathetic journalists.
HonestReporting does not expect media to accept Israel's conclusions at face value. However, Human Rights Watch,
along with many other organizations which claim to focus solely on human rights
without a political agenda, have hardly proven themselves to be an "unbiased"
source.
First,
as an NGO (Non-Government Organization), HRW is not held accountable to anybody
but its own staff.
According to Professor
Gerald
Steinberg of Bar Illan University:
The international human rights framework was created in response to the
horrors of the Holocaust and embodied in the Nuremberg trials and the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But going far beyond simple irony,
this idealistic framework has been hijacked to justify the Palestinian terror
campaign against Israelis.
A small group of powerful NGOs has played a leading role in this process.
At the same time Israeli victims of the latest Palestinian bus bombing were
being buried, HRW's ideologists denounced "Israel's West Bank barrier" as a
grievous violation of human rights. While claiming to speak in the name of
humanitarian principles, HRW officials have
been abusing these norms in order to play an active role in the
public-relations campaign to demonize Israel.
The organization's bias against Israel is hardly new. A report from the
influential NGO Monitor
(which we encourage our readers to read in full) makes the case of HRW's agenda against Israel:
In a study of activities between October 2000 and April 2004, HRW?s reports
and activities on Israel were found to be systematically and exceedingly
biased. Most of the 103 reports, press releases, letters, photo essays and
film festivals focus on condemning Israeli responses to terror, in comparison
to only 13 that deal with Palestinian terror attacks. This record illustrates HRW?s exploitation of the rhetoric of universal human rights in order to
pursue political and ideological objectives in concert with international
demonization of Israel.
The bias of HRW become clear when reading any of its reporting on the
Middle East. In their
latest
annual report, they dismiss the fact that Israel removed all civilian and
military personnel from Gaza, and that Gaza now has its own border with Egypt:
Gaza remains occupied, and Israel retains its responsibilities for the
welfare of Gaza residents. Israel maintains effective control over Gaza by
regulating movement in and out of the Strip as well as the airspace, sea
space, public utilities and population registry. In addition, Israel declared
the right to re-enter Gaza militarily at any time in its ?Disengagement Plan?
Since the withdrawal, Israel has carried out aerial bombardments, including
targeted killings, and has fired artillery into the northeastern corner of
Gaza.
While the last sentence is true, to write it without explaining the context
of why Israel has launched attacks into Gaza is deliberately misleading,
like condemning the U.S. for attacking Afghanistan without context. Israel conducts military operations
in order to stop continual rocket fire targeting civilians. To ignore the rationale for the military
operations is to ignore the very "human rights" that HRW claims to monitor.
Human Rights Watch is just one of many biased or
previously discredited sources that
the media often refer to when reporting on Israel. After being
caught telling an outright lie that thousands of Palestinians had been killed in
Jenin, there
is no reason the media should ever quote
Saeb
Erekat. (For more on Erekat and other PA "spokesmen", read this
CAMERA report). Yet, we the media again giving exposure to his outrageous statements. Consider
Erekat's recent
claim:
The Palestinians do not have any weapons capable of such precision and
such effectiveness that can massacre seven people in one shot. Now they
want to escape the responsibility, and these crimes may reoccur and that is
dangerous and alarming.
No responsible news agency should repeat the outrageous claim that the Palestinians have no weapons that can kill seven
people in one blast. Tragically, the Palestinians have become quite
proficient in mass murder through explosives.
HonestReporting subscribers should demand that the Media use sources
without history of questionable integrity. If your local media have cited
spokespeople or NGOs with a proven anti-Israel agenda, challenge them to work
harder to get the story right. To do otherwise is to mislead the public.
HonestReporting. com
Thank you for your involvement in responding
to media bias.