Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia to Demonize Israel and Raise Money
May 28, 2009
Human Rights Watch, which was largely created and funded by Jewish donors to promote traditional human rights concerns, is now cooperating and seeking funding from the leaders of Saudi Arabia - one of the major violators of the norms that HRW claims to promote. An article in the Arab News praised Human Rights Watch for "gaining more recognition and support in
The Arab News article quotes Sarah Leah Whitson extensively (there is no indication of whether Kenneth Roth, who, as a Jew, would generally be refused entry by the Saudis, was allowed in as part of this benefit for HRW). Whitson is director of HRW
Similarly, Whitson told the Saudi leaders about HRW
Saudi Press: Tuesday 26 May 2009 (01 Jumada al-Thani 1430)
HRW lauded for work in
Nasser Salti | Arab News —
Other prominent members of Saudi society, human rights activists and dignitaries were invited to the dinner held to honor the guests.
In an introductory speech at the dinner, Al-Hejailan said the credo of human rights is rising in the Kingdom. He commended Human Rights Watch (HRW) for its work on
HRW presented a documentary and spoke on the report they compiled on
"Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of
Whitson pointed out that the group managed to testify about Israeli abuses to the US Congress on three occasions. "
Keeping with its mission of even-handed criticism, Human Rights Watch has also leveled criticism at other states in the region, including
Hassan Elmasry, a member of HRW
“Supporters can spot and fully discuss human rights cases or stories with friends or family members before passing stories or cases to HRW," Elmasry said.
The group is facing a shortage of funds because of the global financial crisis and the work on
"Our work involved a lot of travel and expenses for researchers. We are so modest and conservative in running a tight budget of less than $2 million to cover costs and expenses for over 20 researchers working on the Middle East and
"Half of this amount comes from individual donors. We call businessmen in
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.