Human Rights Watch (HRW), according to its own website, is an organization dedicated to investigating and publicizing abuses globally:
Human Rights Watch investigates and reports on abuses happening in all corners of the world.
According to the outgoing Senior Editor Danielle Haas, though, that group’s own internal bias has surrendered the group’s core mission to extremists.
An outgoing senior editor at Human Rights Watch (HRW) accused the organization of politicizing its work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, claiming that its anti-Israel slant peaked following the Hamas onslaught on October 7 in which 1,200 people were massacred across southern Israel.
“Following the Hamas massacres in Israel on October 7, years of institutional creep culminated in organizational responses that shattered professionalism, abandoned principles of accuracy and fairness, and surrendered its duty to stand for the human rights of all,” Danielle Haas wrote in an internal email to over 500 HRW employees, which she sent on Tuesday — her final day on the job. The email was leaked to The Times of Israel.
HRW, of course, denied any bias in reporting on the October 7th attack in Israel by Hamas terrorists. But Danielle Haas wasn’t finished yet:
“HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks failed to condemn outright the murder, torture, and kidnapping of Israeli men, women, and children. They included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’ before blood was even dry on bedroom walls,” Haas wrote in her email to staff.
“These responses were not, as some have since characterized it internally, a messaging misstep in the tumult after the Hamas assault. It was not the failure of a few to follow robust internal mechanisms of editing and quality control, as others have claimed,” she charged.
“It did not happen in a vacuum. Rather, HRW’s initial response was the fruition of years of politicization of its Israel-Palestine work that has frequently violated basic editorial standards related to rigor, balance, and collegiality, when it comes to Israel,” Haas alleged.
At least HRW is in, well, not good company, but they do have company. No less than Ex-CNN talking head (and I use the term advisedly) Brian Stelter has condemned the legacy media’s reporting of the explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, and we have seen that the BBC has apparently taken the side of Hamas in their reporting as well.
But when you have a former President prevaricating on this issue, what else can you expect?
HRW is, among other media and activist outlets, prone to the nonsensical description of Israel as an “apartheid state,” which, when applied to reporting about Israel, is a sure sign that the writer doesn’t know the difference between face and fundament. Israel has Arab Muslims in its Knesset; Arab Muslims who are Israeli citizens can serve in the IDF if they choose, which is actually an advantage, as Jewish Israelis are compelled to serve. Arab Muslims in Israel have jobs, they travel freely about the country, and they vote.
If that’s “apartheid,” then Israel is really, really bad at it. And Human Rights Watch is really, really bad at reporting on Israel.
Media bias has been a problem since at least the Reagan Administration. But back then, there were only the three major television networks (and PBS) as well as the nation’s various newspapers. We are fortunate now to have a variety of alternative media — such as RedState and the entire Townhall Media Group. If you want to know more, please sign up for the VIP program; right now, the promo code “CENSORSHIP” will get you 50% off your subscription price. It’s worth it!
