Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch since 1993, understandably seeks to defend his organization from mounting criticism. But his article in Haaretz (“We apply same standards to Israel, Hamas”, October 27, 2009) does little to address the moral and substantive accusations of bias and disproportionate focus on Israel. Instead, Roth falsely accuses the critics of “trying to exempt Israel from human rights laws.” 

Far from applying what Roth tendentiously refers to as “lower standards” and “exemptions” from human rights laws for Israel, the participants in this debate, including HRW founder Robert Bernstein, call on the organization to use the same standards for Israel as it applies to other countries.

The evidence of HRW’s disproportionality and role in “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state”, to quote Bernstein, is clear. During the recent Gaza conflict, HRW issued nearly one declaration per day – almost all condemning Israel – followed by five major reports on the war, with press conferences to promote demands for “independent investigations”, creating the foundation for Goldstone. No other conflict, including Sri Lanka or the Congo, where the violence is far more deadly, has attracted anywhere near the same level of attention from HRW. Except, that is, for Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah.  And in the past six months, HRW has issued 28 statements promoting the Goldstone mission and report, perhaps related to the fact that Judge Goldstone sat on HRW’s board and has repeated HRW’s indictments.

Beyond the numbers, HRW’s targeting of Israel is accompanied by the lack of credibility and violations of fact-finding norms. Roth’s article ignores these issues and questions concerning the qualifications of employees such as Marc Garlasco, their “senior military analyst”. Garlasco’s dubious allegations regarding white phosphorous, drones, and other weapons are at the center of the war crimes allegations.

In contrast, Roth disingenuously – and without evidence – claims that “No international human rights organization has done more to highlight the war crimes of Hezbollah and Hamas.”  But this is hardly a serious response. Indeed, HRW’s repeated denials of the use of human shields by Hezbollah and Hamas only reflect the failure to go beyond Palestinian “testimony”, to include extensive video material and independent media reports.

If, as Roth claims, HRW challenges Hamas and Hezbollah leaders “and the Arab public to think critically about the unlawful conduct”, this is a carefully kept secret. It is not discussed in the UN Human Rights Council, where HRW enjoys privileged status. Nor is it the subject of the opeds published by Roth and other HRW employees. Bernstein and others have noted that the antisemitism and extensive incitement to genocide coming from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and elsewhere are off HRWs radar.

In fact, when HRW held a fundraising dinner in Saudi Arabia in May 2009 – a moral absurdity in itself – Middle East division head Sarah Leah Whitson, emphasized the organization’s role in promoting attacks on Israel, as well as the need to oppose “pro-Israel pressure groups.”

Such behavior highlights HRW’s central contribution to the politicization and moral degradation of universal human rights. This record also highlights the need for an independent investigation of the organization, including an examination of hiring policies, agenda-setting and ideological bias in the Middle East division. Perhaps then, founder Robert Bernstein’s call for a “return to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it” will be heard, and this organization can “resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world.”