The political bias of HRW's Middle East division is regularly expressed in its disproportionate focus on Israel and the selective use of human rights language to undermine any attempts at self defense. But recent statements have shown the extremes of hypocrisy and double standards that HRW will go to make a political point.
It's July 13 press release entitled "Lebanon/Israel: Do Not Attack Civilians" portrayed Israel's strikes on terrorist infrastructure in Lebanon as morally equivalent to Hezbollah's directing of rockets randomly at Israeli civilians. But in making his facile equation, HRW ignores Hezbollah's use of southern Lebanese villagers as human shields when it stockpiles and even launches weapons in their homes. In this and many other aspects, there is no Israeli equivalent. Despite Human Rights Watch's campaign alleging use of Palestinian civilians as human shields by the IDF, particularly during the anti-terror actions in 2002, there is no parallel attention to Hizbollah's long running endangerment of civilians. This is one of many examples in which HRW applies double standards in using the rhetoric of human rights.
Similarly, this powerful NGO which is run by a number of anti-Israel activists has hardly said a word on Hizbollah's aggression against northern Israeli communities (one press release out of five comments on Hezbollah's use of "indiscriminate" weapons). HRW's July 17 "Questions and Answers" is a 4000 word diatribe, demonizing all Israeli responses to attack (while real and serious human rights violations are neglected in order to demonize Israel). This supposed "analysis" of human rights law as it applies to the current conflict brushes over Hezbollah violations but is careful to include unverifiable speculation about Israeli motivations. HRW has released one statement condemning the presence of deadly ball bearings in Hezbollah rockets. Yet it has produced four reports condemning Israel, including characterizing Israel's tactics as "open[ing] the door... to terrorism" and deliberately "prevent[ing] civilians from seeking safety." There is the usual mantra of Israel's "disproportionate" use of force, with no attempt to describe what might be a "proportional" response to an unprovoked attack of thousands of rockets and missiles by proxy forces of Syria and Iran. And even Israel's practice of dropping leaflets to warn civilians of an imminent air strike is criticized as insufficient. HRW's obsession in condemning Israel's actions as "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated," has blinded it to the fact that there are military advantages that indeed need to be gained. If Israel gave the civilians hours of notice before striking, there would be no reason to bomb, the stock piled weapons having been moved elsewhere.
Such tunnel vision towards its political goal not only undermines HRW's credibility as a defender of human rights, but also feeds the process of anti-Israel demonization. Until it relinquishes its extremist political program with respect to Israel, and recognizes the difference between terrorists and sovereign democratic states, HRW will continue to fuel the conflict that it condemns with such vigor.