In a concerted campaign targeting the credibility of Human Rights Watch, Israel and some of its supporters are charging the group sought to raise funds from wealthy Saudis in part by highlighting its criticisms of Israel and the group’s resistance to pro-Israel forces in Washington.
This funding appeal to an audience likely to be hostile to Israel belies the human rights group’s claims of objectivity and impartiality, say the group’s critics, who note the presence of two Saudi government officials at the May gathering. But HRW has defended the solicitation, citing its representatives’ discussion of human rights violations by Saudi Arabia in the same talk.
“The meeting in Saudi has been falsely construed as involving solicitation of funds to counter the Israel lobby,” HRW’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, told the Forward. “Nothing like that happened. Indeed, we would not and will not solicit funds on those terms.”
The clash is but the latest chapter in an ongoing conflict between pro-Israel groups and HRW, one that has only intensified since Israel’s military campaign last winter in Gaza and HRW’s subsequent charge that both Israel and its opponent, Hamas, committed war crimes then. But in the process, questions have been raised about HRW’s practice of offering donors the opportunity to earmark their contributions to projects involving specific countries.
The HRW visit to the Saudi kingdom was first criticized by NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based organization and frequent critic of HRW. The group cited a May 26 report in Arab News, a Saudi English-language wire service, that said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division, and Hassan Elmasry, a member of HRW’s board of directors, attended a “welcoming dinner” in Riyadh, hosted by Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan, “a prominent businessman and intellectual.”
During the event, according to Arab News, the HRW officials discussed human rights violations in the Saudi kingdom, presented a documentary and discussed the organization’s report on Israeli violations during the Gaza military operatoin.
Whitson was quoted in the report as saying: “Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets. Pro-Israel pressure groups in the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations have strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it.”
She added that the group had managed to testify about Israeli abuses to the U.S. Congress on three occasions, Arab News reported.
The publication stated that Elmasry told the audience of “prominent members of Saudi society, human rights activists and dignitaries” that the group is facing a shortage of funds because of the global financial crisis and because of the work on Israel and Gaza, which depleted HRW’s budget for the region. “We call businessmen in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world to support HRW by sending donations,” he was quoted as saying.
While no one has challenged the veracity of the Arab News account, its interpretation has been the subject of a heated dispute.
David Bernstein, a George Mason University law professor, picked up the NGO Monitor item in mid-June, on the right-wing blog The Volokh Conspiracy.” He accused HRW staff of going to Saudi Arabia “to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW’s demonization of Israel.”
But the critique gained traction only once Bernstein’s posting was taken up on the openly conservative online editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal on July 14 and sent around to reporters by Josh Block, chief spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel Washington lobby. Block described it to journalists as evidence of HRW’s anti-Israel bias.
Israeli officials quickly seized on the controversy. “We are going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups; we are not going to be sitting ducks in a pond for the human rights groups to shoot at us with impunity,” Ron Dermer, director of policy planning in the Prime Minister’s Office, was quoted as telling The Jerusalem Post. “When I see a human rights organization try to raise money in Saudi Arabia, it speaks to the collapse of the human rights community.”
Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet refusenik, lamented to the Post that HRW, which was created under the name Helsinki Watch in the late 1970s to defend Soviet political prisoners like him, has become “a tool in the hands of dictatorial regimes to fight against democracies.”
On July 17, HRW fired off a press release rejecting the accusations. In it, HRW explained that as part of its efforts to diversify its financial basis, “Human Rights Watch staffers made presentations on our work to two private audiences in Saudi Arabia in May 2009 (as well as to audiences in Amman and Beirut). These were receptions in private homes, hosted by people who were interested in Human Rights Watch and who invited other guests to learn more about us.”
Reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, a staunch albeit sometimes critical supporter of Israel, took up the issue on his Atlantic Monthly blog, eliciting additional details from Roth.
Roth, who was not on the trip, told Goldberg that among the dinner guests were a member of the Saudi government’s official human rights commission and one from the Shura Council, which enforces religious law in the kingdom. “Neither of these individuals was solicited for funds, nor would Human Rights Watch ever accept funds from such officials,” HRW said in its July 17 press release.
The organization’s policy is to systematically refuse government funding and seek backing from individuals and foundations only. But Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor’s executive director, counters that such a distinction is not a valid one in Saudi Arabia, where money and power are closely intertwined. “The idea that the funds were expected to come from ‘ordinary’ wealthy Saudi human rights activists unconnected with the regime is absurd, even by HRW’s standards,” he said. The latest controversy, he added, represents “a major crisis for HRW.”
Roth says he has heard this before.
“Our reporting on the [2006] Lebanon War prompted a wave of unfounded criticism by some of the same voices objecting to the Saudi visit,” he told the Forward. He stressed that the flaps had “no discernible impact among our donors and supporters. Fortunately, there are many, many supporters of Israel who believe in the fair and objective application of human rights principles — including to Israel.”
Steinberg claims that some Jewish donors sought to push HRW to focus less on Israel by earmarking funds for study of human rights abuses in other countries, including Saudi Arabia. HRW, which has a $40 million annual budget, says it does accept such earmarked funding, on the condition that donors have no role in the work or influence on its results. But Roth said no such targeted funding was in place for work on Saudi Arabia and that, conversely, no Saudi money was earmarked for work on Israel or Palestinian areas.
Over the years, pro-Israel critics have accused HRW of focusing disproportionately on Israel. But a recent review by the news agency Inter Press Service found that of more than 30 releases in June and July (so far) about the region, Israel was criticized three times, Saudi Arabia five times and Iran nine times.
Goldberg, for his part, was most troubled by the Israel lobby discussion. When he asked Roth whether HRW officials at the dinner advertised the organization’s opposition to the pro-Israel lobby, Roth responded: “That’s certainly part of the story. We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception. It wasn’t a pitch against the Israel lobby per se. Our standard spiel is to describe our work in the region. Telling the Israel story — part of that pitch — is in part telling about the lies and obfuscation that are inevitably thrown our way.”
Roth told the Forward that the discussions over pro-Israel pressure groups should be viewed in a broader context. Some 75% of HRW’s money comes from the United States, the group has noted, which is viewed in the Middle East as a bastion of pro-Israel influence. HRW also has many Jewish donors. “Since many people in the Middle East believe that HRW is too soft on Israel because of our donor base, we often cite the vehement attacks on us by reflexive Israel supporters to show the reality, which is that we criticize Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Arab governments — anyone — when we find evidence of human rights violations,” he said.
Contact Marc Perelman at feedback@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
'War' With Ultra-Orthodox at Kotel? Bring It On
You've successfully signed up!
HRW and its hard-core defenders claim that the NGO superpower does not target Israel, does not use double standards, and should be immune from independent investigation. For example, this article notes "a recent review by the news agency Inter Press Service found that of more than 30 releases in June and July (so far) about the region, Israel was criticized three times, Saudi Arabia five times and Iran nine times."
This claim confuses very different activities, in order to disguise clear evidence of HRW's disproportionate focus on allegations targeting Israel. The heavy weapons in HRW's arsenal are glossy reports, footnote to provide the facade of "research" accompanied by press conferences, media interviews, briefings for diplomats, and similar attention generating activities. This is how Ken Roth and other HRW officials mark the issues in which they are seriously interested, as distinct from minor human rights infractions that get a short email or press release, and are forgotten, except when needed to refute the evidence of double standards. The HRW website shows that in Sarah Leah Whitson's Middle East and NA division, one such "research report" was published in June and July -- consisting of condemnations of Israel for alleged (and entirely speculative) use of drones in 6 (or maybe 4, or perhaps no) incidents in which civilians in Gaza might have been killed. For this pseudo-research, HRW pulled out all the stops -- a full dress press conference, interviews, embassy tour, etc. In sharp contrast, HRW's items on Iran and Saudi Arabia consist of brief statements -- without press conferences or other efforts to publicize them. And in terms of substance, HRW's reports condemning Israel are based on unverifiable allegations, in sharp contrast to the human rights violations of Iran and Saudi For more on the methodology and comparing the resources and political agendas of human rights organizations, see NGO Monitor's detailed reports .
I applaud HRWs stand and hope that it does not cave into Jewish pressure. Using Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc are just diversionary tactics to distract from the ongoing genocide agaisnt the Palestinian poeple
I also applaud HRW. I recommend that people read their Middle East reports http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-east/n-africa read what NGO monitor says http://www.ngo-monitor.org/index.php , and decide yourself who's right.
I would invite you to answer the following question:
HRW criticizes not only Israel but Saudi Arabia http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-africa/saudi-arabia , Palestine, Iran, and other middle east countries.
Where does NGO monitor criticize Israel?
Wouldn't an "ongoing genocide" mean, counterfactually, that the Palestinian population was decreasing, instead of having among the highest growth rates in the world?
Not only do the Israel-firsters demand the right to vet all criticism of Israel, but now they demand the right to vet all fund raising by those who might criticize Israel. No doubt, when it comes to Israel we should all just genuflect and keep our mouths shut.
[David Bernstein, July 20, 2009 at 11:29pm] Trackbacks Daniel Levy's Defense of Human Rights Watch:
Levy writes:
"The apparent trigger for this assault on a group that represents the global gold standard in human rights monitoring, analysis, and advocacy, was a visit by HRW's Middle East-North Africa director, Sarah Lee Whitson, to the Saudi kingdom. I happened to find myself on a panel at The Century Foundation discussing the Middle East with Whitson just days before this storm broke — I went back and watched tapes of that panel discussion. To accuse Whitson of being soft on the Saudis or somehow singling out Israel for criticism is quite astonishing as I'm sure you'll agree if you take ten minutes to listen to her presentation — of that, more in a moment."
Okay, so I listened. If you have any illusions about HRW's neutrality or objectivity re Israel and its neighbors, you should too.
Whitson had a fifteen-minute presentation on human rights in the Middle East. She spends approximately three minutes and thirty-five seconds describing Israel's alleged violations of international law and human rights. Her presentation of the relevant facts and relevant international law is tendentious in the extreme [Gaza, with not a single Israeli soldier or civilian, is "occupied?" Israel "transferred" its population to the West Bank? Using white phosphorous to illuminate targets violates international law?]. She accuses Israel of apartheid. She consistently refers to the wars in Lebanon and Gaza as "Israel's wars," even though, obviously, they were fought against foes that were launching cross-border attacks against Israel's civilian population and which declare themselves to be at war with Israel. She accuses Israel of war crimes, including "indiscriminate" bombing of South Lebanon, which, given the low civilian casualty in the second Lebanon War--even Hezbollah puts the total in the high hundreds, while Israel says low hundreds, out of a population of hundreds of thousands--from a nation with one of the most powerful air forces in the world, is absurd. If Israel had engaged in indiscriminate bombing, casualties would have been in the tens of thousands. I expect foes of Israel to engage in such hyperbole, but Whitson is supposed to be an "objective" human rights advocate.
And after Whitson's several minute-long exhaustive survey of Israel's alleged sins, she spends all of approximately twelve seconds on Hamas and Hezbollah, and this is the total of what she said: "of course there are also violations of international humanitarian law by the armed groups that are fighting Israel, namely Hamas and Hezbollah, but of course there are armed groups that have been in conflict with them [sorry this isn't coherent--ed.]. And that's something Human Rights Watch has documented." That's it.
After the exhaustive list of Israel's alleged crimes, no mention of
* Hamas's suicide murders * Hezbollah and Hamas's indiscriminate (really indiscriminate) lobbing of missiles into Israel * H & H's use of human shields, use of civilian establishments for military purposes, and failure to wear military uniforms * the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers * Hamas's reign of terror against Christian Palestinians * Hezbollah's threat to democracy in Lebanon * Syrian and Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism * Hamas's murder of Fatah supporters
and so forth and so on.
She then spends several more minutes criticizing U.S. aid to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, with additional specific criticisms of Israel thrown in, and suggests the U.S. should be nicer to Hamas and less supportive of Fatah.
And note that this was a speech to an American audience. God knows what she said in Saudi Arabia. And God knows what she thinks privately, as opposed to what she reveals publicly. Somehow Levy hasn't persuaded me that this speech shows that Whitson doesn't single out Israel for criticism in the U.S., much less when she's on a fundraising trip to Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi human rights activists who in good faith donated to support HRW's battle with pro-Israel pressure groups in the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations should be refunded at least one-third of their donations. Because I am unaware of any group in the third category that ever resisted or discredited this or any other HRW report.
On another note, I'm surprised that the author of this story, who rightly characterized the various pro-Israel elements covered in his article, failed to tell us anything abuot the Inter Press Service (IPS) -- which happens to be an overtly tier-mondiste, anti-American and anti-Israel agency, with regular diatribes against Neocon conspiracies of one kind or another. Whether or not their analysis is correct is a separate matter.
I have a pretty fundamental question: Putting aside HRW's despicable anti-Israel campaigns (which should be obvious enough to a pigeon of average intelligence), how in hell does a purported "human rights" organization go hat-in-hand to one of the biggest human rights abusers on the planet? Where I come from, that constitutes a blatant conflict of interest of the highest order. Do these people have no shame?
I agree with Sarah Leah Whitson. Look at the facts. Look at the Human Rights Watch web site http://www.hrw.org and see for yourself.
I hope the Forward can spare some time also to examine the finances, methods and notives of the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center.
Morris Dees rakes in the cash by scaring rich old Jews into thinking that conservative white America is crawling with neo-Nazis and there's a pogrom round every corner. This witch-hunting schnorrer, whose HQ in Atlanta is known locally as the Poverty Palace, has done far more to discredit Jewry's interests and inflame tensions and hatreds than anything Human Rights Watch's squint could achieve.
Here's a start for you, Ken Silverstein's investigation:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1809
Morrie Dees is the unindicted Bernie Madoff of 'antisemitism'.
Why do have Saudis to finance a mostly Jewish Human Right Watch? Where are the Arab HRWs? Why do you don't read and hear any Arab NGO critic of Hezbollah, of Hamas, of the anti-Semitic TV-Programs from Ramallah and elsewhere in the Arab world? Why is it, that the "Human Rights" are always defended against, never for Israel? And why are the defenders mostly from self-importance plagued Jews? Isn't it time to ask these questions ?
My sincere thanks to the Forward for its fine reporting on the decline of the once-respected human rights organization, HRW.
It is simply appalling that such an organization solicits funds from Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights offenders on the planet.
It just goes to show that Anatoly Sharansky was dead on when he recently wrote that today's human rights activists and organizations can't tell the difference between a liberal democracy and reactionary autocracy.
HRW is following straight in the path of other so-called "liberals" on the left who have inscribed themselves on the payroll of their Saudi paymasters and with these monies malign Israel disproportionately and defend Wahabi madrassa teachings.
The two HRW officials mentioned in the article who were in Saudi Arabia and bad-mouthing Israel to boot are notorious Israel-bashers and well -known fanatics sympathetic to Hizbullah and Hamas. All human rights funders and supporters should withdraw their investment in this duplicitous organization which has turned into a money-grubbing enterprise to fuel the egos of its bureaucratic leaders.
It is shameful to see Human Rights Watch sell its good name for Saudi money.
Gerald Steinberg writes that "HRW and its hard-core defenders claim that [HRW ...] should be immune from independent investigation."
Can Steinberg quote one single HRW employee who ever once said anything like "HRW should be immune from independent investigation?" Who implied such a thing? Or did Steinberg simply pull that accusation out of thin air, then proclaim it as fact? The latter, I suspect.
This article provides a detailed timeline of another such case, whereby another right-wing professor (mis)read a news article about HRW, appended his own inaccurate commentary, and then presented his dubious opinions as facts. These newly minted "facts" were picked up, repeated, and exaggerated, to the point where a harmless non-story about an HRW publicity junket became proof of a nefarious and possibly antisemitic conspiracy to libel the Jewish state.
People, it seems, will believe what they want to believe. Some commenters here are actually applauding the Forward for confirming HRW's guilt! It's as if their eyes skipped over all of the facts in this article, and simply doted on the quotes from Steinberg and various Netanyahu staffers. It's quite remarkable, and not a little frightening.
HRW should hang its head in shame for all these years of maligning Israel. thanks to the forward for bringing this story to light.
Thank You, Money, Money, Money. Hate to say it, Some people will do anything,prostitude principles for money. A Woman representing HRW, begging for Saudi Money! This alone is an abomination. WOMEN need to bear arms not just babies. Saudi KING says, "the plight of the Muslim women is not up to me, it´s up to Allah". Allah supports the GUN. Three choices, One give up all rights and bow to Allah, be a happy slave. TWO,Suicide yourself,your tired and just want to get away from it all, too weary to fight. Last choice is the right to bear arms, defend yourself and your freedoms, learn to shoot a gun. DOWN with the king, Power to the Women. Thank You Peter Knopfler
Notice all the usual anti-Semitic characters, above, lauding this extreme leftist anti-Israel/anti-Semitic NGO!
HRW is so obviously a virulent leftist Israel-basher, it is absurd to print its cynical denials.
Yet one more example of its evil propaganda:
.....
HRW to Participate in anti-Israel UN Question of Palestine Event
http://blog.ngo-monitor.org/other-ngos/human-rights-watch/hrw-to-participate-in-anti-israel-un-question-of-palestine-event/
Speaking of anti-Israel propagandists, J Streets "polls" have been cooked:
.....
STREET FOUNDING VP SECRETLY COOKS ISTS LEFT-LEANING POLLS
Noah Pollak in Commentary reveals that Jim Gerstein, who conducts public opinion polls that invariably show US Jewish opinion further left than any other surveys, was a founding vice president of J Street, the anti-AIPAC lobby that seeks to build pressure for concessions on Israel. The revelation, suppressed in the publications of the organization but uncovered in its IRS filings, casts into further doubt the already questionnable polling data used by the left-wing lobbying group in its campaign to support Obama Administration criticism and bullying tactics against the Israeli leadership, especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
......
"Since its founding, J Street has employed polling as a central tactic in its effort to convince people that American Jewish opinion on Israel is ideologically aligned with its own far-Left views. The three-step is simple but shrewd: if Jewish opinion does not support your agenda, 1) create some polls to show that it does; 2) declare yourself the new mainstream; 3) accuse the traditional organizations of being the real extremists.
Much skepticism of J Street’s polls has accompanied their release, and many have pointed out their clever, results-oriented phrasing. But this hasn’t diminished their ability, when people accuse them of advocating an agenda that has little support among American Jews, to point to their own polling and declare themselves the true representatives of Jewish opinion.
J Street’s polls have always been conducted by Jim Gerstein, who runs a far-Left progressive political consultancy in Washington. As J Street says on its polling pages, “Survey analysis from Jim Gerstein, Principal at Gerstein | Agne, the firm that commissioned the poll.”
Now J Street is an advocacy organization, not a newspaper or a judge, so it need not police its conflicts of interest with fastidious rigor. But Jim Gerstein is not simply a principal at the firm that conducts polls for J Street. He was J Street’s vice president.
You’d never know this from J Street’s staff page or the voluptuous promotion that accompanies the release of a J Street poll. You wouldn’t know it from all the mentions of Gerstein on J Street’s website, in which he is always portrayed as an independent actor. In order to know that he was J Street’s founding vice president, you’d have to look at J Street’s 990 IRS form.
So J Street not only commissions polls—it writes the questions, conducts them, analyzes the results, and then carries out promotional campaigns with the findings. If you were wondering how it was possible that J Street could repeatedly produce “polling data” that almost perfectly complements the group’s political agenda, now we have one important clue."
We are grudgingly stating that Hamas created war crimes for practical reasons. When Sarah leah Winston tried to solicit funds from the Saudis, she rightfully pointed out that our raison d'etre is to find a final solution to the israeli problem. Once Israel is eliminated, we can focus on less egregious human rights violations like Darfur, Congo, Sri Lanka, Tibet, etc. Unfortunately, the Saudis did not contribute as much as we had hoped, so in order not to offend our left wing donors in NYC and San francisco, we offered a perfunctory condemnation of Hamas. This helped prevent defections from our core donors. Make no mistake about it-the creation of israel was the worst human rights abuse in ALL of history, and we are working as much as possible to end it, but our condemnation of Hamas is tactical and not sincere.
Its too bad when the Forward deletes pro-Israel comments and retains those of the anti-Semites. This "article" is an attempt to "whitewash" an enemy NGO. Consider the response:
.....
NGO Monitor: 6 Questions on HRW’s Gaza Rockets Report August 6, 2009
(Jerusalem) – Jerusalem based research organization NGO Monitor has reviewed .Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) report (“Rockets From Gaza”) on Hamas’ rocket fire on Israel’s civilian population.
While the report clearly finds Hamas guilty of war crimes and acknowledges “the psychological toll of years of rocket attacks” on Israelis, a number of questions need to be addressed:
1. Why did it take HRW 6 months to issue a report that covers no new ground and largely repeats the International Crisis Group’s report of April 2009? In the interval, HRW issued two publications condemning Israel. NGO Monitor’s detailed analysis of HRW’s report on Israel’s use of drones can be found here (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/absolutely_wrong_analysis_of_hrw_drone_report)
2. Why does HRW perpetuate the “balance” between terrorist groups and their targets? (“Whether it is Hamas’ claims of the ‘right to resist occupation’ or Israel’s of the right ‘to combat terror’, the reasons for engaging in armed conflict do not permit a party to ignore its legal obligations in the way it conducts hostilities.”)
3 Why did HRW fail to condemn Hamas for extensive use of human shields? What is the basis for the claim that Hamas “did not…force civilians to remain in areas in close proximity to rocket launching sites”?
4. Why is Israel absurdly blamed for Hamas’ rocket fire from populated areas? According to HRW, Hamas “redeployed from more open and outlying regions – many of which were…controlled by Israeli ground forces…into densely populated urban areas”. In other words, Israel’s operation against the rocket fire is blamed for the Hamas violations of the laws of war. And numerous rocket attacks from these same urban areas – long before the IDF operation - is not mentioned.
5. Why is there no effort to uncover details of weapons smuggling into Gaza, and no mention of Iran? When HRW published speculative allegations on Israel’s use of drones and white phosphorous, they emphasized US military assistance.
6. Why does HRW continue to falsify the history in order to attack Israel? This report blames Israel for the end of the ceasefire -- “These attacks virtually stopped…but resumed after Israeli forces killed six Palestinian fighters…on November 4, 2008”. This version ignores the fact that Israel was responding to tunnels being completed and suggestions of another kidnapping attempt.
NGO Monitor’s President Prof Gerald Steinberg suggested some answers: “While containing no new information, this report might have had an impact if HRW published it six months ago. The fact that it is only now on their agenda exposes their biased priorities. The timing might indicate HRW's effort to use this report to divert attention from the Saudi fundraising controversy, and as a fig leaf to cover the disproportionate focus on Israel.
On the substance, HRW failed to indict Hamas for turning the entire Gaza population into one massive human shield, and ‘researchers’ need to explain why they did not investigate the sources of the ‘smuggled’ rockets or to mention Iran. In contrast, when condemning Israel on a very thin factual foundation, HRW officials consistently criticize the American security relationship and arms transfers”.
NGO Monitor has issued a report detailing how HRW's attacks on Israel have been shown to be "precisely wrong":
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/absolutely_wrong_analysis_of_hrw_drone_report
Does any Jew have any lingering doubts about the motivations and credibility of this anti-Israel hate-group?
Here they go again! HRW is at it again, libeling Israel with fraudulent concocted stories. Its latest Nazi propaganda claims Israeli soldiers murdered Gazans waiving white flags (of course based on terrorists' stories). If you want to see who are the anti-Semitic scum who support them, read some of the posts above.
Another not-so-shocking disclosure about virulent anti-Israel "J Street". LOOK WHO SUPPORTS J STREET:
......
Aug 14, 2009
MUSLIMS, ARABS AMONG J STREET DONORS
By Hilary Leila Kreiger, Jerusalem Post Correspondent
The J Street political action committee has received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as from several individuals connected to organizations doing Palestinian and Iranian issues advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Additionally, at least two State Department officials connected to Middle East issues have donated to the PAC, which gives money to candidates for US Congress supported by J Street. The organization describes itself as a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby pushing for more American involvement and diplomacy in resolving the Middle East conflict.
Arab and Muslim donors are extremely rare for other organizations that describe themselves as supporters of Israel as J Street does, Jewish leaders at organizations across the political spectrum told The Jerusalem Post. Because most of these other organizations are not PACs, however, US law does not require them to release their donor lists. J Street's non-PAC arm also does not release a complete list of contributors.
J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami estimated the amount of Arab and Muslim donors to be a very small percentage - at most 3 percent - of the organization's thousands of contributors. But he said that such supporters show the broad appeal of J Street's message and its commitment to coexistence.
"I think it is a terrific thing for Israel for us to be able to expand the tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel and willing to support Israel through J Street," he said. "One of the ways that we're trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel is that you actually don't need to be anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian to be pro-Israel."
Activists from several other Israel-oriented groups, though, suggested that J Street's donor list reflects on the group's commitment to Israel and approach to the peace process.
"It raises questions as to their banner that they're a pro-Israel organization. Why would people who are not known to be pro-Israel give money to this organization?" asked Lenny Ben-David, a former Israeli diplomat and staffer for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major Washington lobby but not a PAC that makes contributions to candidates. "Once you introduce a large group and large amount of money from people who are suspect in their pro-Israel credentials, J Street loses some of its credibility in claiming it is pro-Israel and representing the Jewish community."
Ben-Ami described the organization as one that is "primarily but not exclusively Jewish" and said that as the numbers of Arabs and Muslims participating in J Street are low, he would like to welcome more non-Jews into the fold.
The funds that come from these sources indeed constitute a small fraction of the year-and-a-half-old organization's political fundraising, which totaled around $844,000 in 2008 - a key election year - and $111,000 so far in 2009. They comprise several dozen of the PAC's 4,000-5,000 donors.
But some of the contributors play key roles in the organization. The finance committee's 50 members - with a $10,000 contribution threshold - include Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute, and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American Council board. The group has also received several contributions from Nancy Dutton, an attorney who once represented the Saudi Embassy in Washington.
Smaller donors include several leaders of Muslim student groups, Saudi- and Iranian-born Americans, and Palestinian- and Arab-American businessmen who also give to Arab-oriented PACs.
Additionally, Nicole Shampaine, director of the State Department's Office for Egypt and the Levant, gave $1,000 last summer. Lewis Elbinger, who used to serve in Saudi Arabia, gave a combined $150.
A State Department legal adviser said there were no laws or codes prohibiting employees from donating to groups doing advocacy work on the policies they are formulating.
"The State Department ethics rules don't prohibit contributions to lobbying groups," she said.
Shampaine did not respond to a request for comment from the Post and Elbinger could not be reached.
The donations raised the eyebrows of some Jewish organization officials.
"It informs our view of where these individual foreign service officers' heads are in relation to US-Israel policy," said one who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It might not be the smartest move for them to be showing their hand in that way, though I don't think it's illegal or even unethical."
Though Abdoo, Lynch and Dutton also did not respond to queries from the Post, donor Zahi Khouri was reached by telephone during a visit to the West Bank, where he splits his time along with Orlando.
He explained that he donated to the J Street PAC because "I believe that they are sincere about being pro-Israel and they are sincere about being pro-peace. And AIPAC I consider an enemy of Israel rather than a friend of Israel because they're not helping it to achieve peace."
The businessman behind some of the biggest Palestinian investment groups and enterprises said that he wanted to see a home for Israel and a home for Palestinians, along the 1967 border with a shared Jerusalem and symbolic treatment of the refugees, and felt that J Street would help achieve that.
"They are equally hard on the Palestinians as they are on Israel, so they're not pro-Palestinian. They are just pro-peace and pro-Israel. I believe that," he told the Post.
Khouri, who also does outreach in conjunction with a Palestinian media advocacy group, noted that he doesn't give money to other Jewish or Israel-oriented organizations, and officials with such bodies said it was very unusual to receive money from Palestinian or Muslim Americans.
Mainstream groups ranging from the American Jewish Committee to the United Jewish Communities 150-plus federations rarely if ever get such donations; PACs from the National Jewish Democratic Council's to the Republican Jewish Coalition's don't list such contributors among their public filings.
Other progressive Jewish groups also aren't accustomed to such backers.
"APN receives thousands of checks every year from its supporters. The vast majority - as far as we can tell - are American Jews. That is the segment of the US public that we typically target," said APN spokesman Ori Nir, noting that while he does not keep tabs on every check received, he knows that all of the group's major donors are Jewish.
Nir, whose group has similar stances on the peace process and engagement with Iran to J Street, also said that the organization tears up any checks sent with Israel-bashing notes.
In contrast, Ben-Ami said that J Street doesn't screen or reject donations. "We are so clearly pro-Israel, and we are an organization that is grounded in and based in Jewish values and a Jewish desire to support the State of Israel, that if someone wants to choose to do their political giving through us, it's more a question for them: Do they want to be seen to be giving their money through us. If they do it, that's the statement they're making."
Ben-Ami also rejected anything smacking of a religious test of donors for pro-Israel groups.
"It would be a very big mistake for pro-Israel organizations to apply a religious or ethnic litmus test for support for Israel from other Americans. I don't think anybody checked to see whether [Pastor] John Hagee was Jewish before he was invited to keynote the AIPAC conference," he said. "I don't think we should be banning Christians, I don't think we should be banning Muslims, I don't think we should be banning Arabs from finding a way to support Israel, to support its right to exist and to support a program that is designed to secure the future."
Ben-Ami noted that J Street, as with APN and other Jewish groups, doesn't solicit donations from Muslims and Arabs, but he said that in any case, "Our views are not a reflection of our donors. Our donors are supporting our views."
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the few mainstream Jewish organizations to recall receiving occasional donations from Arabs or Muslims - though, like most non-profits, it hasn't disclosed its donor list as the law doesn't require it to - said the key issue in his mind about J Street's contributors were whether they were individuals or organizations.
"Individuals have a right to support whoever they want. What would be troubling would be if you find organizations," he said, as it raises the question of, "Why are these Arab or Muslim organizations supporting a Jewish or pro-Israel group?"
Another leader from a mainstream pro-Israel organization said that while his group has never received money from such sources, "There's no moral impediment for reaching into other constituencies. It's not something we have done, but I like to think the cause of Middle East peace is a cause that is not only supported by American Jews but is broadly supported."
At the same time, he suggested that these donors might have chosen to give to J Street because "that constituency supports the kind of a line that maybe naturally gravitates to an advocacy organization that's more critical of Israel."
An official from another Jewish organization who also spoke anonymously had a different explanation for the donations, though. "Arab-American organizations or Palestinian American organizations have minuscule impact in Washington" in comparison to major Jewish ones, he maintained. "That's where the power is. So if you're looking for impact, for bang for your political buck, you'd give to J Street."
Ben-Ami rejected the contention out-of-hand. "I can't see this having become a vehicle in any way for the political expression of Arab-Americans. I think that's ludicrous. I don't see that in the slightest."
He said instead that it was J Street's "approach to being pro-Israel that actually is so attractive to people of other religions, who are trying to find a way to be pro-Israel that breaks the cycle of violence, and breaks the cycle of us-versus-them thinking."
Its a good for the beneficary to the human. No one can do like you.
Regards
B A Khan