Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
However, in other ways, HRW’s use of language reflects a somewhat more measured
and judicious approach. For example, in 2005, HRW limited its use of “war crimes”
exclusively to Israel, but in 2006, the term was used with respect seven countries in
the region: Israel (15), Iraq (28), Iran (4), Jordan (1), Syria (4), PA(6), and Hezbollah
.([(19[3
Nevertheless, when all the evidence of distorted language in HRW reports for 2006 is
taken into account, the double standards and demonization of Israel are clear. In
:addition to the examples cited above, we note that
Israel was cited 30 times for “Violation International Humanitarian Law/•
Human Rights Law” and Libya 23 times as opposed to 2 such citations for
.Egypt and 6 for Syria
Israel was cited 21 times for “grave/serious Human Rights•
violations/abuses” as opposed to 4 for Egypt and 0 each for Libya and
.Syria
Israel was cited 28 times for "illegal/violating the law" and Libya 34 times•
.as opposed to 1 citation each for Syria and Egypt
The following graph covering HRW publications for 2006 illustrates this systematic
:imbalance
:Endnotes
See the report published by Andres Ballesteros, Jorge Restrepo, Michael Spagat .1
and Juan Vargas of the University of London and the Conflict Analysis Resource
Center (CERAC), a Bogota-based research center. In their report, “The Work of
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia”, the
authors state that Human Rights Watch's reports have a "non-systematic approach that
includes opaque sourcing and frequent changes in the objects they measure"
Moreover, they document that HRW “seldom define[s] the categories [it] report[s] on”
and publishes on "only a few variables while others come and go from year to year . .
. [which] complicates any effort to grasp changes over time in the HR environment."
".The report also documents HRW's tendency to "underestimate guerrilla killings
Note that only statements regarding insurgents, rather than the policies of the .2
United States or other countries with forces in Iraq, were included in NGO Monitor
.statistics and analysis on Iraq
It is important to note that while HRW cited Israel 15 times for "war crimes" and .3
Hezbollah 19 times, the impact of these condemnations of Israel was greater than the
impact of its condemnations of Hezbollah. For example, 4 of the 19 citations of
Hezbollah were in "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in
Lebanon", the only major report published during the war. As the title shows, the
report focuses almost entirely on allegations against Israel. Such condemnations
against Hezbollah are therefore buried, minimizing their impact. In many other cases
as well, condemnations of Israel were often more widely publicized than
condemnations of Hezbollah or the PA. See this report's sections on the 2006 Lebanon
.War and the Gaza Beach Incident for more detail
HRW exhibited a similar failure to acknowledge mistakes in its reporting on the .4
bombing in Qana. On July 30, immediately following the attack, HRW issued a press
release declaring that “at least 54 civilians have been killed.” On August 2, 2006,
HRW revealed that its "preliminary" research yielded a casualty count of 28 – there
are still conflicting reports on the details – yet nonetheless, the organization has failed
to remove the original statement from its website. See Marvin Kalb of The John F.
Kennedy School of Government-Harvard University's study, "The Israel-Hezbollah
War of 2006: The Media as a weapon of Asymmetrical Conflict" for more
.information on HRW's premature casualty estimates regarding the bombing at Qana