See Noah Pollak for a translation of a Maariv expose of the latest Human Rights Watch report villifying Israel.
Turns out that the author of the HRW report, Joe Stork, is a radical Marxist who supported the Munich massacre and shows little regard for factual accuracy when it comes to undermining Israel:
Several times in the past, Stork has called for the destruction of Israel and is a veteran supporter of Palestinian terrorism. Already as a student, Stork was amongst the founders of a new radical leftist group, which was formed based on the claim that other leftist groups were not sufficiently critical of Israel and of the United States’ support of it. Already in 1976, Stork participated in a conference organized by Saddam Hussein which celebrated the first anniversary of the UN decision that equated Zionism with racism . . . .
Where does Stork stand regarding matters of objectivity and neutrality? He criticized Professor Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, himself a PLO figure, because he edited an anthology which tried, at least seemingly, to produce a balanced presentation. “Academic neutrality is deceitful,” wrote Stork. And what about factual accuracy? Stork claimed that Menachem Begin said that, ‘The Palestinians are two-legged animals.” In fact, Begin said that those who come to kill children are “two-legged animals.” The difference is, of course, huge. Stork, time after time, justifies his high standing in the industry of hate and lies against Israel.
Stork reached his peak in a statement published by the Middle East Research and Information Project [MERIP] which dealt with gathering information on the Middle East conflict, and in which Stork was a leading figure. This was a statement that included explicit support for the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics:
“Munich and similar actions cannot create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement,” the statement said, “But we should comprehend the achievement of the Munich action . . . It has provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians in the camps.”
Murder and terrorism, if so, are a matter of morale.
This is the man. A radical Marxist whose positions have not changed over the years. On the contrary. Objectivity, neutrality or sticking to the facts are not Stork’s strong suit. He even proudly exclaims that there is no need for neutrality.
I'm struggling to understand this.
-
A human rights organization employs a man who thinks murder is great for morale.
-
Stork, who thinks intellectual and factual dishonesty is reasonable, is tasked with writing a report requiring intellectual and factual honesty — about the one country he has an axe to grind with.
What kind of organization is HRW?
It's nother tarnish in the HRW's halo effect on the media. As NGO-Monitor explains that phenomenon:
The evidence shows that many journalists simply reprint NGO reports without question or verification. This is known as the “halo effect”, and violates both journalistic ethics, which require skepticism and independent verification, and the norm when reporting from other sources, including government officials. But when a “highly respected human rights watchdog” such as Amnesty International or HRW makes a statement, journalists tend to ignore the bias and repeat this as fact.
The IDF dismissed the HRW report saying it was based on unreliable witnesses. It would've been better to say it was based on an unreliable organization.
Read Pollak's post of the whole expose.
UPDATE August 19: For an interesting partial defense of Stork, see Volokh Conspiracy posts one and two, via Solomonia.
