Methodology
NGO and Goldstone Casualty Claims Contradicted
Problematic and unsupported NGO casualty statistics were repeated in the media, the Goldstone Report, and other NGO publications. Will they be re-evaluated?
Topics
HRW's Destructive Criticism: Analysis of False Claims Against Israel
HRWs manufactured allegations of racism exploit human rights by condemning Israel, contributing to the global campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel.
Topics
ACRI promotes anti-Jewish Discrimination through "Judaization" Libel in Jerusalem
ACRIs report is based almost exclusively on Palestinian testimony. None of the claims can be verified independently, and the testimony is clearly designed to promote the desired political conclusions.The publication is entirely one-sided and reinforces the artificial image and ideology of Palestinian victimization. The surprising use of the phrase Judaize erases the intense Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem and suggests that the very presence of Jews is alien and unacceptable.
Topics
Pathological Politics: HRW's "White Flags" Report
HRWs allegation that Israeli forces deliberately killed Palestinian non-combatants who had surrendered is an incendiary moral indictment. Video and similar evidence that is inconsistent with the indictment is entirely missing from the HRW report. The report is based on inconsistent Palestinian testimony, claims copied from other NGOs, and irrelevant forensic evidence. In response to criticism, HRW issued a defensive press release that did not address the substantial flaws in its report. The inability to verify claims is inconsistent with definitive pronouncements on war crimes -- an accusation made 15 times in this report.
Topics
Absolutely Wrong: Analysis of HRW report, "Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles," 30 June 2009
In Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles, HRW uses the term war crimes 7 times, and the alleged attacks are termed unlawful. The case is entirely speculative, but the conclusions are stated with absolute assurance, as if the evidence was totally clear. HRW emphasizes pseudo-technical and unfounded legal. Credible and verifiable evidence is not provided. Military experts challenged HRWs claims and assumptions about weapons and drones. The text appears to reflect the authors lack of significant battlefield experience, particularly related to split-second decision making.
