HRW defends its reporting, denies allegations of bias
In a leaked internal email, a senior editor at Human Rights Watch (HRW) accused the organization of politicizing its work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Danielle Haas, who had been with HRW for 13 years, claimed that the organization’s anti-Israel slant reached its peak following the Hamas onslaught on October 7, which resulted in the deaths of 1,200 people in southern Israel. HRW responded to the allegations, stating that Haas’s departure was unrelated to their work on Israel-Palestine and defending their reporting as applying the same standards as in other areas.
HRW’s Response to Hamas Attacks
According to Haas’s email, HRW’s initial response to the Hamas attacks failed to condemn the murder, torture, and kidnapping of Israeli civilians. She criticized the organization for including the “context” of “apartheid” and “occupation” before the blood had even dried on bedroom walls. Haas argued that these responses were not mere messaging missteps but the result of years of politicization of HRW’s work on Israel-Palestine, violating basic editorial standards of rigor, balance, and collegiality.
HRW’s Criticism of Israel
HRW has been known for its critical stance on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and its occupation of the West Bank. Haas acknowledged that criticism is valid, but she claimed that HRW went beyond that, pointing to the Israel chapter in HRW’s annual global review of human rights. She stated that the chapter has always been longer than those of countries with severe human rights abuses, such as Iran and North Korea. Haas also criticized HRW’s 2021 report accusing Israel of practicing apartheid, arguing that the careful legal argument was rarely read in full and was now being misused by those who bandy about the term without understanding its implications.
Haas’s Experience at HRW
As a Jewish, dual Israeli national, Haas claimed that some types of Israeli-Palestine expertise were valued more than others at HRW. She mentioned receiving pushback when highlighting factual inaccuracies in the Israel-Palestine chapter, which were later corrected. Haas also raised concerns about antisemitism fueling her mistreatment at HRW but said that no action was taken by senior management. She suggested that there were others on the HRW staff who shared her concerns but were afraid to speak out.
HRW’s Reliance on Sources and Death Toll Figures
Haas criticized HRW’s reliance on death toll figures from the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, arguing that it does not differentiate between terrorists and civilians and includes those killed by errant Palestinian rockets. Israel and the US have questioned the reliability of this source. Haas’s email suggested that HRW should reevaluate its sources and methodology to ensure accuracy and impartiality in its reporting.
HRW’s Response to Haas’s Claims
In response to Haas’s allegations, HRW stated that it has worked on abuses in Israel and Palestine since 1991, often in partnership with Israeli and Palestinian groups. The organization defended the integrity of its work, applying the same standards of rigor and dedication to its reporting on Israel-Palestine as it does to other conflict areas. HRW emphasized its commitment to protecting all civilians in conflict zones and holding accountable those who violate international humanitarian law.
Conclusion: The accusations made by outgoing senior editor Danielle Haas against Human Rights Watch (HRW) have raised questions about the organization’s objectivity and professionalism in its work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While HRW denies any bias and defends its reporting, Haas’s claims highlight the need for transparency, accuracy, and balance in human rights organizations’ work. The controversy surrounding HRW’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict underscores the challenges of navigating complex geopolitical issues while upholding the principles of human rights and impartiality.
Leave a Reply