writes David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy. Human Rights Watch's reporting from Lebanon is evidently straight Hezbollah propaganda - crude and (in any other circumstances) almost comic. (Remember Comical Ali?

)
You won't be surprised if you have been keeping up with the transformation of Human Rights Watch into one more megaphone for the hard Left. The same thing is happening, unfortunately, at many other NGO pressure groups, including Amnesty International, as Bernstein .
RightCoast readers won't be surprised about Human Rights Watch.

In December 2003 I had spent some time with a senior Human Rights Watch officer in New York, and I was shaken by the experience:

I've met one senior Human Rights Watch officer at several symposia in New York over the past few months, and I was genuinely taken aback at her visceral hatred not only for George Bush (that's to be taken for granted in these circles) but for the US more generally. Over the course of several hours of discussions, touching on a variety of events over many decades, she made it extremely clear that a human rights problem (past or present) exists for her only if America can be blamed for it. Quite simply, she has no interest in it if she can't blame America for it -- whether plausibly or, in many cases, utterly implausibly.

She blames America first, last, and always. Not exclusively though. She also loathes the state of Israel, and expressed disgust at the existence of a Jewish state -- in any borders.

One knows in the abstract that many NGOs , especially human rights organizations , have now been mentally absorbed into the hard and enraged left. It's a worrying thing, given the influence many of these organizations have at the UN and elsewhere. Their influence, in many cases, draws on their past reputations -- deserved or otherwise -- for fairness or at least for being somewhat serious and sane.

But many of these groups, Human Rights Watch unfortunately included, are increasingly far from being fair, or serious, or even sane. I would like to think that the grim, almost unhinged zealotry of my Human Rights Watch acquaintance is not the norm in these circles. Then again, I would like to think all sorts of things that, unfortunately, aren't so.

was my (full) post. Do read the whole of on Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
I've discussed this at Volokh, and I see no reason not to copy-and-paste my final post here.

What I say about Amnesty International also counts for Human Rights Watch.
"..

. if Amnesty's reports are tainted by anti-Israeli bias then all of their reports must be considered suspect. I don't know about the CIA's human rights report, since I imagine they can collate their own data, but much of the content of the UK foreign office's annual HR report is based on information obtained by AI and HRW.

No matter what some have said, Britain conducts its foreign policy in light of the contents of this report. Amnesty does not decide British foreign policy, but decisions regarding authoritarian states such as Cuba are made while taking their HR offences into account. I imagine other states do likewise.

Discrediting Amnesty would serve to discredit their reports on the execution of homosexuals in Iran, or the repression of democracy in Myanmar, or the torture of dissidents in the 'Stans of central Asia.
Right-wingers have repeatedly attempted to smear Amnesty as anti-American, anti-semitic or, to quote the author of this post, "part of the international far left". They do this because some of AIs conclusions conflict with the narrative they want to project.

Amnesty, like the Vatican, may have no divisions at its command, but it is an invaluable instrument of soft power for democratic reform. The fact that the west cannot order AI to ignore issues it considers inconvenient is a benefit to the democracies of the world, not an infringement..

."
Neither Amnesty nor HRW has any locus to concern itself with the moral reasons for war - in analysing the recent hostilities in Lebanon, neither organisation will comment on whether the attempted eradication of Hezbollah was justified. These are considerations for governments: human rights organisations exist to highlight human rights violations regardless of whether they are committed by democracies or terrorist groups.

I believe the apt aphorism here would be "Be careful what you wish for."
There cannot be any doubt that Israeli actions in Lebanon have violated the treaties to which it is signatory. These include the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, The Geneva Conventions, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Whether you believe these actions are justified or not are irrelevant in the eyes of international law, but I am not concerned by the human rights violations of Israel any more than those of Iran or Sudan.
The attempt to smear AI and HRW because they have drawn conclusions you do not agree with is despicable and counter-productive. Both of these organisations are committed to protecting human rights in all countries on Earth - the fact that you are so outraged by the ludicrous anecdote above indicates that you don't often read their reports on Iran, Cuba, Syria, Egypt, Russia, China, North Korea or Myanmar.

The attempts by FR to defend Amnesty is to assume that they provide the only reputable reports of torture or mistreatment. Unfortunately for the author, this is not the case. And if it were the case, would be immaterial to the argument.

To say that a stopped clock is right twice a day is no argument for attending to the clock.
You state: "Right-wingers have repeatedly attempted to smear Amnesty as anti-American, anti-semitic or, to quote the author of this post, "part of the international far left". They do this because some of AIs conclusions conflict with the narrative they want to project.

"
I’m afraid this is not an argument. It is an ad hominem attack since it assumes that these “right wingers” are simply trying to “spin” an issue. If you are going to persuasively address an issue, it is useful to address the issue.

For example, it would be useful to point out the AI denunciation of Hezbollah attacks on civilian targets by unguided weapons, the addition of ball bearings, the use by that organization of human shields, … (in equal length and emphasis) to persuade us that AI has not taken a position.
Perhaps the MSM has chosen not to publicize these denunciations of Hezbollah because of its bias? Possible.

Why not show us?
Moneyrunner - this is why the blogosphere is regarded as the domain of morons. You have Google at your fingertips but you can't even be bothered to verify your statement before you post it.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?

OpenDocument of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
And Paul - Amnesty has condemned Hezbollah in the past and it states clearly in its report that it will address Hezbollah in a seperate report.
I am far more inclined to trust Amnesty's integrity than I am that of, say, the Instapundit, who quoted Amnesty's report on the repression of women in Iran today without question.

This only two days after he had linked to the Volokh condemnation of Amnesty as a tool of the "international far left".
This is why I say that the right of the blogosphere is dishonest in its treatment of human rights organisations - it cherry-picks those reports it likes and attempts to smear those it doesn't.
This does nothing to assist the advancement of international recognition of human rights.

"There cannot be any doubt that Israeli actions in Lebanon have violated the treaties to which it is signatory. These include the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, The Geneva Conventions, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."
FLying Rodent would have you believe that these treaties make it impossible to wage war under any circumstances.

It is evident that the Geneva Conventions were prmulgated to make war-making possible, not to outlaw it altogether.
Hezbollah fighters are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are not in uniforms and they do not represent a signatory State.

Under the usual laws of warfare, irregular terrorists are shot on sight.
But no matter, c'est la lutte finale, groupons-nous et demain, l'Internationale sera le genre humain!
Sorry Gandalin, but nobody was talking about the rights of Hezbollah fighters.

They give up practically all of their rights as soon as they take up arms for Islamism, because they are an illegal terrorist group.
Hezbollah has a maximum of 4,000 men under arms. They have practically no human rights, beyond the fact they cannot be executed without trial if captured.

The people we are discussing are Lebanese civilians. Bakers, builders, housewives, doctors, teachers, school children, soccer players, lawyers, car mechanics.
At some point, some joker will probably point out that many south Lebanese (i.

e. Shia Muslims) support Hezbollah politically.
This does not mean that they are legitimate targets for bombing, unless you are Saddam Hussein.

I have a very bad reaction when someone uses the argument "there cannot be any doubt." It is usually a cover for "if you look at things my certain way, you will see them in my certain way."
Flying Rodent lands squarely in that.

What he considers beyond doubt are actually highly interpretive and dependent on initial assumptions.
Yes, both HRW and AI do issue reports condemning other countries. I have visited their sites many times.

Repeatedly, they report Western colds on a par with non-Western cancers. That is simply not good enough. If rights organizations are going to hold Western nations to pure standards regardless of context, then they certainly have no return argument when they are held to pure standards themselves.

Seeing that HRW and AI don't think it is reasonable to be held to such standards, they should ask themselves why.
Assistant Village Idiot,
Do you mean the colds reported in Sudan?
Or the very sarcastic letter Human Rights Watch wrote to Bashar Al-Asad, supreme tyrant of Syria?

Or, utterly fatal to this entire thread, the letter Human Rights Watch wrote to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the conflict in Lebanon?
Yet again, a little Googling would have helped.
And you wonder why I cast aspersions on the right wing of the blogosphere.

Bill,
Israel targeted the bakers, builders and housewives by deliberately bombing water pumping and filtration facilities, petrol stations and supermarkets. These are definitively civilian structures, and I am ready to listen to any evidence you have that can justify these actions.
This is before we begin to discuss the massive strikes on civilian city blocks.

There is a debate to be had whether airports, ports, a UN installation and warehouses filled with food count as military targets. I'm not particularly concerned by those, since the issue at stake is not Israeli war crimes, but malfeasance on the part of HRW.
What truly concerns me is the right-wing attempt to smear Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

"Israel targeted the bakers, builders and housewives".
FR: if Israel started deliberately targeting civilians, you'd know it by the fact that there simply wouldn't be any Palestinians or Lebanese left alive.
In fact, being a civilized nation, they do not do this.

There's one side in this war that likes to attack pizza parlors, elementary schools, night clubs, and civilian airliners.
Hint: it's not Israel.
Charles,
Selectively quoting my posts does not validate your point.

The destruction of water, transport and food supplies puts Israel in violation of the treaties it has signed. The fact that it has not slaughtered every man, woman and child in Lebanon and Gaza is surely not a point of pride.
Nonetheless, my point is not about Israeli actions, it's about HRW and Amnesty International.

I think I might post those links again, since it seems nobody bothered to read them.
Flying Rodent, you claim:
"Israel targeted the bakers, builders and housewives by deliberately bombing water pumping and filtration facilities, petrol stations and supermarkets. These are definitively civilian structures, and I am ready to listen to any evidence you have that can justify these actions.

"
-but unless you were present in the room with the commanders, you have no idea at all what they were targeting. Your assertion is without any basis in any fact that you observed. It is merely an assertion.

Hot air. You have no idea what was targeted, and I bet you have very incomplete knowledge about what was actually hit.
On the other had, there is ample, verifiable evidence that the Israel Defense Forces warned civilians to remove themselves from Hezbollah targets by broadcast, leaflet, and even personal telephone call.

There is ample, verifiable evidence that the Israel Defense Forces took every possible step to minimize civilian deaths and injuries.
Under the Geneva Conventions, a military target is a military target. If a military target is located in a civilian zone, it is the legal responsibility of those who located it there to move it.

Any civilian deaths and injuries are the fault of those who place military targets in civilian zones.
Under the Geneva Conventions, all of the civilian deaths in South Lebanon are the fault of Hezbollah. More Hezbollah war crimes.

Flying Rodent,
Please provide evidence of the deliberate targeting of the strictly civilian structures you point out. Specifically, give me evidence that the structures were not dual use (i.e.

a bunker placed under a supermarket) and not hit by accident. Even those you are defending are not making such grandiose assertions.
As to the key point, here, we can clearly see AI and HRW condemning the Israelis for what even you suggested was not a particular concern.

In fact, they're doing so in no uncertain terms. Can you produce so much as a peep of them condemning Hezbollah.
Gandalin,
Every treaty Israel has signed is relevant in this argument.

It is not for civilians to move themselves out of the way of Israeli bombs and bullets - it is incumbent on the combatants to ensure that civilians are not harmed.
It does not matter whether Hezbollah gave a damn about civilian casualties - the laws of war are quite clear, and Israel, like every other nation on Earth, is welcome to derogate from them at any time.
Israel is not only bound by the Geneva Convetions - it is bound by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Amnesty report is factually correct and no amount of boo-hooing by any of the commenters on this board is going to change that. The same goes for the reports of HRW.
If you would like to whine like children about the unfairness of international law, I suggest you address your comments to each other.

I joined this thread in order to defend the honour of HRW and AI, but it appears I have wound up havingto defend the existence of objective reality.
And Bill,
It is Israel's responsibility to prove that it did not bomb civilian infrastructure maliciously.
It can do this by providing photo or video evidence of Hezbollah in the water facilites, supermarkets etc.

This evidence will be a long time coming, since common sense indicates it does not exist - 4000 Hezbollah terrorists could not possibly occupy so much space at the same time as fighting ferociously with IDF troops, while under heavy bombardment.
And I'd like to finish by, yet again, clarifying that I am not having a go at the Israelis, I am having a go at dumbasses that believe Amnesty and HRW are biased entities determined to aid terrorists.
"It is Israel's responsibility to prove that it did not bomb civilian infrastructure maliciously.

"
Seems to me that it's the responsibility of those who make accusations to prove THEM.
OT- John Braue, good to see your name in a comment thread again.
Old Grouch,
If it ever came to court, you would be correct.

But these hostilities will never come to court.
I should be clear - the commission of war crimes does not render a cause invalid. The destruction of Dresden was unquestionably a war crime, but it did not make the Allies cause less just.

Hezbollah are clearly a psychotic, fundamentalist gang of criminals. Nobody, bar their wives, will weep if they are killed on the field of combat.
Nevertheless, is there anyone man enough in this thread to admit that the Amnesty and HRW reports are correct?

That is all I am looking for, since it is demonstrably true and no amount of denial will change that fact.
Flying Rodent - how exactly do you know that the IDF targeted bakers and other civilians? It would seem that a strong case has been made that the IDF warned the civilians to vacate the areas before they were attacked.

It would seem that the civilians would know that military resources had been placed in close proximity to them. In a time of war, I don't think it behooves the attacker to warn civilians living around a military target (which includes electricity plants, bridges, airports, munitions factories, gasoline depots, highways that might be used for military resupply, radio/tv/media communications, military installations, etc.), as most civilians know what would be used to fight against the IDF.

The IDF went the extra mile and warned the civilians anyway. At the height of he Cold War, could you imagine the USSR showering the US with leaflets letting our population centers know that nukes would be landing soon? A number of reports, like at Qana, were shown to be very false, yet claims of war crimes were made even before the smoke cleared.

I think if an organization wanted to be seen as truly even handed, it would follow up on every claim of a war crime on both sides. It would gather all the details and coroborate it with physical evidence. Eyewitness reports are of some value, but must be treated carefully, because witnesses can have obvious bias.

Even pictures and videotape can be staged and photoshopped, so treat that kind of evidence with a certain amount of distrust as well. There are lots of wellknown cases of staged photos/video in the middle-east, so I'd almost be inclined to dismiss any such evidence out of hand. Be very clear about not only the results of the incident, but the kind of weapon used and the appropriateness of that kind of munition considering the type of target and where it's located.

Have multiple military experts give their opinion on the munitions used and whether that was appropriate or not given the situation. As much effort and thoroughness should be used to examine every rocket/bullet fired by Hezb as by the IDF. At this point it appears that every move the IDF made is given incredible scrutiny, whereas every move Hezb made was greeted with a shrug and a "we'll get to detailing you failures.

..later" blase.

They have made some statements condemning Hezb, but considering the number of rockets fired, it hasn't been as voluminous as the condemnation of Israel.
It's hard not to come to the conclusion that every rocket fired by Hezb was a war crime because they targeted cities and not military targets. It is very possible to argue that every target that the IDF hit had military value.

If the IDF hit a civilian-only target, one has to ask if it was due to bad intelligence or the munition simply missed its real target. It's known that Hezb only targeted civilians, so that question doesn't apply to them. You can argue whether the IDF could have accomplished its mission without hitting so much of the infrastructure that the civilians rely upon to be comfortable, but no one has the right to be comfortable.

Collateral damage in and of itself is not a war crime. War crimes are a matter of policy by one side, and on the other side it needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, which requires time, and there's no way enough time has elapsed to have come to any thorough conclusions, so it would seem that any such conclusions were reached before the war began.
FR, you believe that you have answered my objections and others, but you have not.

The first complaint levied against AI and HRW was proportion and distinction. You have studiously avoided these in a pedantic attempt to focus a yes/no, up/down question of whether Israel did anything wrong. We are rejecting that question as less important than the question of proportion.

Thus, linking that HRW and AI do indeed criticise despotic regimes is something that none here are contesting. To keep repeating it more loudly is unlikely to change things much.
We are arguing context and proportion, not because they are easier and vaguer, but because they are more important.

The actuality of whether Israel committed war crimes is of course important. It is just that there is no sense in our discussing it with a person who cannot grasp larger issues. You choose to see this as evasive because you do not understand.

I think FR is doing a reasonable job in defending AI HRW -- but I think the AI / HRW bias is clear. What they should be doing more of is similar to the Freedom Rankings, and state a variety of criteria, and evaluate each country against that set of criteria. Lebanon would be very low -- since Hez is in and is a part of Leb, and each and every rocket they shot, "targeted" civilians.

Most destruction caused by Israel is probably not a "war crime", if most of the targets were military.
There is the problem that AI HRW seem to want "war" to be "illegal", and thus call the justice based response to murder, kidnappings, and illegal rocket attacks as, essentially, equally a "war crime" as the original murders.
Philosophically, before there is need of a "justice system", some injustice must occur.

The operation of the justice system to punish those initiating the injustice is a grey area combining morals and pragmatism. Neither AI HRW seem to offer much help in stopping injustice, genocide in Darfur, for instance. As of a few months ago, neither org even called it genocide -- since if it was genocide, it would obligate the UN to use violence, war, to stop it.

And of course such violence would mean fighters fight, kill, die, and even kill civilians.
AI HRW are also symbiotically connected with the Main Stream Media -- whose Public Opinion megaphones are turned on high for NGO reports critical of Bush / the US / Israel / any capitalist country, but "not much story" for reports critical of Arab governments or most other dictators (except Pinochet! gone from power for 18 years).

It's likely that 40-60% of the complaints about AI HRW are due to the biased magnification of the MSM.
As for AI's "grave" concern over a fair trial for Saddam Hussein, perhaps they should interview the thousands of victims. As an American woman who lived in Kuwait during the entire invasion and war with my children, I can assure you Saddam is getting far more humane treatment than he extended to us.

AI has failed Americans, in their newfound beliefs that only third world countries can whine and be heard. That would seem to include dictators.
Perhaps they can call me in as an "expert" witness.

Cancel my invite to the "pity party" for these tyrannical rulers.