Former HRW employee claims organization’s anti-Israel bias intensified after Hamas onslaught
In a shocking revelation, an outgoing senior editor at Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused the organization of politicizing its work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Danielle Haas, who worked at HRW for 13 years, claims that the organization’s anti-Israel bias reached its peak following the Hamas onslaught in which 1,200 people were massacred across southern Israel. Haas’s accusations have sparked a heated debate about HRW’s objectivity and professionalism.
Allegations of Bias and Departure Decision
Haas’s accusations came to light through an internal email she sent to over 500 HRW employees on her final day at the organization. She claimed that HRW’s responses to the Hamas attacks failed to condemn the murder, torture, and kidnapping of Israeli men, women, and children. Haas argued that HRW’s initial reactions were a result of years of politicization of its Israel-Palestine work, violating basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance, and collegiality. HRW, however, responded by stating that Haas’s departure was decided weeks prior to the October 7 attacks and that it was not related to their work on Israel-Palestine.
HRW’s Defense and Reporting Standards
HRW defended its reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asserting that it applies the same standards to its work on this subject as it does to other areas. The organization has been highly critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its occupation of the West Bank. Haas acknowledged that criticism is valid but argued that HRW went beyond that, pointing to the Israel chapter in HRW’s annual global review of human rights, which she claimed has always been longer than those of rights-abusing countries like Iran and North Korea. She also criticized HRW’s 2021 report accusing Israel of practicing apartheid, stating that the organization knew its careful, legal argument would rarely be read in full.
Mistreatment and Antisemitism Concerns
Haas, who is Jewish and a dual Israeli national, raised concerns about mistreatment and antisemitism within HRW. She claimed that her expertise on Israeli-Palestinian issues was undervalued and that she faced pushback when highlighting factual inaccuracies in the Israel-Palestine chapter. Haas also alleged that she brought up her concerns about antisemitism with a senior manager, who acknowledged her feelings but took no action.
HRW’s Response to the October 7 Massacre
Haas criticized HRW’s first statement issued after the October 7 massacre, stating that it barely addressed what had happened and could be construed as blaming the victim. She also took issue with HRW’s reliance on death toll figures from the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, arguing that they do not differentiate between terrorists and civilians and include those killed by errant Palestinian rockets.
Calls for Change and Internal Climate
Haas concluded her email by challenging HRW to address the longstanding issues infecting its Israel work and the hostile internal climate that the Hamas attacks brought into sharp relief. She claimed that there are others within HRW who share her concerns but are afraid to speak out.
Conclusion: The accusations made by outgoing senior editor Danielle Haas have ignited a debate about the objectivity and professionalism of Human Rights Watch in its work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While HRW maintains that it applies the same standards to its reporting on this subject as it does to others, Haas’s claims of bias and politicization raise important questions about the organization’s credibility. As HRW faces scrutiny, it must address these concerns and work towards regaining trust in its mission to protect human rights.
Leave a Reply