HRW Exploits Hague Hearing, Delegitimizes Israel's Security Concerns

NGO Monitor Analysis (Special Edition) 26 February 2004
www.ngo-monitor.org

The Political Agenda of HRW's Campaign on Israeli Separation Policy

The headline of HRW's February 23 briefing paper, Israel: West Bank Barrier
Violates Human Rights: International Court of Justice Opens Hearings on
Barrier Case, published to coincide with the opening of the International
Court's hearings, is further evidence of this organization's direct
political involvement in the conflict. It also displayed a profound
insensitivity to the Israeli victims of the latest Palestinian terror
bombing in Jerusalem, whose funerals were taking place on the same day.

The contrast between HRW's consistent silence in response to Palestinian
brutality and the concerted campaign in support of the Palestinian position
speaks volumes about the motivations and strategy of this NGO. (An exception
to this strategy is analyzed at
www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n01/v1n01-2.htm ). Furthermore, the lack of
balance is palpable from HRW's moral equivalency between blanket claims
regarding Palestinian inconvenience as a result of separation and the
immense security benefits for Israelis, who have suffered almost 1000 deaths
in terror attacks over the past three years, many of which could have been
avoided by the existence of the Separation Barrier. From the point of view
of universal human rights, the Palestinians also gain from a reduction in
terror. Many Palestinian terrorists have inflicted immense harm on innocent
Palestinian civilians by hiding bomb factories and terrorist infrastructure
in densely built civilian areas. Furthermore, HRW fails to consider the
positive impact on human rights resulting from the removal of checkpoints
and the large-scale reduction in daily friction that will result from the
construction of the separation barrier.

HRW's twisted approach to human rights strips this organization of its
legitimacy as an apolitical advocate of universal human rights and
highlights its exploitation of these norms to pursue a political agenda.
This briefing paper perpetuates the vocabulary of demonization of Israel,
illustrated in HRW's role in the 2001 UN Conference on Racism held in
Durban, in Jenin (April 2002), and repeatedly since then (see the analyses
of HRW on www.ngo-monitor.org ). The claims that Israeli policies "violate
international human rights and humanitarian law", "entail indiscriminate
punishment of entire communities", and constitute "arbitrary and excessive
restrictions" are the result of a pro-Palestinian political ideology and not
universal human rights criteria.

In addition, contrary to the tone of HRW's mission statement that promises
"fact-finding investigations", these simplistic conclusions are designed to
further the goal of delegimation of Israel. Although this press release
includes a brief ritualized reference of Israel's "right and duty to protect
its civilians from attack", there is no substantive understanding of the
implications of this central element of human rights. Moreover, HRW does not
make any effort to raise serious analysis of alternatives, or empathy for
Israeli victims of brutal terror bombings.

Like HRW's other pronouncements and advocacy campaigns on the Israeli-Arab
conflict, the emphasis on the legality of settlements, boundaries, and
disputed territories in this press release and briefing clearly demonstrate
the core political agenda for which the language of human rights is
exploited and cheapened. Although this press release includes the mantra
that HRW "takes no position on the Israeli-Palestinian territorial dispute",
the adoption of the Palestinian position and vocabulary demonstrates
precisely the opposite. The claim that "The route of the barrier... is
designed to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel the civilian
settlements" is factually incorrect. Many settlements are outside the fence
and some are slated for removal, as part of the disengagement plan.)

In summary, the publication of this press statement, timed to coincide with
the ICJ hearing and Palestinian demonization campaign, are clear evidence
that HRW is not a human rights organization, and that its agenda in this
region remains primarily political and biased.