Developing the ability to engage in vigorous debate and oppositional advocacy is central to legal education. So why is the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) so averse to a diversity of opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
When a Human Rights Watch activist was given two chances on MSNBC to talk about the situation in Israel, she used the word “terrorism” only once. No, not in reference to the mass murder, rape, mutilation, torture, and burning alive of 1,400 Israeli men, women, and children at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Rather, she used it to describe the Israeli Defense Force’s urging of Gazans to evacuate northern Gaza where the IDF intends to strike hard against those Palestinian terrorists.
There’s very little in the piece by Professors Michael Barnett, Nathan J. Brown, Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami that’s original. But the depth of its dishonesty, even for an opinion piece, is rare.
After Kenneth Roth, the former head of Human Rights Watch, received a preliminary offer of a Senior Fellowship from the Carr Center at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, the offer was not approved by the Kennedy School's Dean. Roth's reaction was to lie about his own and HRW's record, and cast blame on -- surprise -- Israel and the Jews, thus illustrating why the Dean was right to nix him.
For all their high-minded rhetoric about free speech and expression, some “human rights” activists and lawyers seem zealously opposed to allowing debate. As a recent conference panel demonstrated, this is particularly true among those who seek to besmirch the Jewish state with substantively empty accusations of “apartheid” and “racism.” However, after efforts by CAMERA and others to counteract this behavior, purveyors of the libel – and their sponsors – now know they will not be left unchallenged.
Associated Press immediately covered Booking.com's decision Friday to warn customers against Israeli settlements as being located in "occupied territory" and therefore posing "high risks to safety and human rights." Yet, two days after Booking.com's decision Saturday to apply warnings to all West Bank properties — Israeli and and Palestinian alike — AP's story on that critical reversal is still stuck at the gate.
In the face of a rising tide of anti-Semitism, CNN deserves praise for presenting its special report Rising Hate: Antisemitism in America, but it’s important to note the report had both positive and negative aspects, including crucial omissions, such as noting that anti-Semitism comes from the left and the right, while failing to actually name any guilty parties on the left.
CNN International acted less like a legitimate media outlet focused on serious journalism and more like a public relations agency on behalf of the designated organizations.
Reality – with which HRW has a tenuous relationship – can be rather inconvenient and complicated. But if HRW seeks to maintain any shred of credibility as a fact-driven, impartial institution, it cannot simply sweep away these complicating and inconvenient factors in pursuit of a partisan narrative.
