Robert
Bernstein: Human Shield for Criticism of Israel
Writers Articles And Opinions
26 October 2009
By Max Kantar
Earlier this week
the New York Times published an op-ed article, Rights
Watchdog, `Lost in the Mideast' written by Robert L.
Bernstein, the founding chairman emeritus of Human
Rights Watch.
The editorial amounts to one regurgitation of Israeli
propaganda after another in an effort to delegitimize
mainstream criticism of Israeli policies in the
international human rights community. The timing of
Bernstein's article is instructive; its publication in
the New York Times comes on the heels of the release
of the Goldstone Report as the intellectual apologists
for Israeli crimes in the U.S. go into ultra-hysteria
mode to save the already eroding image of their
favorite client state. Bernstein decries HRW for its
supposed anti-Israel bias and unleashes a tirade of
familiar accusations routinely invoked by `supporters
of Israel' to deflect criticism of the Jewish state.
To make the case that HRW--and presumably the
international human rights community in general—has
`lost critical perspective' on Israel-Palestine,
Bernstein cites six major points:
1) There is no "moral equivalency" between the
"democratic and non-democratic worlds"
2) HRW spends more time criticizing Israel than it
spends criticizing individual neighboring states
3) Hamas and Hezbollah use civilians as human shields
and do not fight fairly
4) The government of Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah
and seeks to destroy the state of Israel and
exterminate all Jews
5) Weapons are making their way into Gaza and Lebanon
and might be used to strike Israel
6) Israel only commits wrongs in self-defense while
Hamas and Hezbollah do so intentionally
These claims are all demonstrably false. What is
interesting is that someone in Bernstein's position
surely must be aware of this. In his analysis
Bernstein wisely chooses not to inform his readers of
the general political context surrounding
Israel-Palestine- -a point to which I will return. For
the moment, let's have a look at Bernstein's primary
talking points.
Moral Equivalency and the Democratic
and Non-democratic Worlds
Bernstein begins by explaining that HRW in its birth
originally "sought to draw a line between the
democratic and non-democratic worlds in an effort to
create clarity in human rights" in order "to pry open
closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support
dissenters." More to the point, "we wanted to prevent
the Soviet Union and its followers," Bernstein
declared, "from playing a moral equivalence game with
the West."
Bernstein's suggestion that there is no comparison
between alleged human rights violations inside
democratic states as opposed to abuses in
authoritarian and undemocratic states seems to be, at
face value, reasonable. However, the HRW reports of
Israeli human rights violations are almost always (the
exceptions being the wars in southern Lebanon)
documentations of Israeli practices and policies in
the occupied Palestinian territories where
Palestinians most certainly do not live under the rule
of a democratic state, but rather under the rule of a
ruthless, foreign military occupation. Palestinians in
the occupied territories (henceforth OPT) are
systematically denied freedom of movement, assembly,
and speech; they are routinely subjected to
violence--often times lethal--at the hands of the IDF
and paramilitary Jewish settlers, both of which act
with virtual impunity and are totally unaccountable to
the Palestinians. Jewish settlers living illegally in
the occupied Palestinian territories enjoy all the
rights and privileges that one would attribute to "the
democratic world" while Palestinians in the same
territorial entity essentially live under martial law,
in what amounts plainly to an extremely violent
military/police state. Palestinians have absolutely no
rights and no say in the (Israeli) government and
military that effectively rules over them. Bernstein's
inference that documented Israeli human rights abuses
take place in "the democratic world" is perhaps his
most absurd and irresponsible assertion. By any
standard of law and government the OPT is a part
of--to use Bernstein's terminology- -"the undemocratic
world." Of course, the existence of systematic
violations of human rights (like those attributed to
Israel) proves that those being subjected to the
abuses are not part of anything that could be even
remotely called a "democracy."
Furthermore, it should be understood that empty and
elite rhetorical concoctions like "moral equivalency"
are simply terms of propaganda used to justify
applying to official enemies standards one refuses to
apply to favored states. Suggesting that favored
states (Israel or the West in general) have an
inherent moral superiority compared to disfavored
states/parties is totally meaningless. It has been
illustrated time and time again that the internal
democratic character of a state does not necessarily
inhibit it from committing gruesome atrocities outside
of its official national boundaries. What difference
does it make to the victims of state violence if the
perpetrator has democratic institutions and provisions
in its own national territory? The real issue at hand
is Israel's human rights record, which leads us to the
next point.
Why Does HRW Write More about Israel
Than Other States in the Region?
To illustrate HRW's failures, Bernstein points to the
fact that although "the region is populated by
authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights
records," (which it surely is) it is Israel who
receives the most condemnations from HRW. The basis
for Bernstein's objection to this fact (assuming that
Israel does receive the most condemnations) is that
Israel is a democracy--rational e that falls flat on
its head when juxtaposed with the reality in the
occupied Palestinian territories, as illustrated
above.
That being said, perhaps Israel receives more
attention from HRW than its neighbors because it does
indeed have the worst human rights record in the
region. For over forty years it has been a belligerent
occupier, constantly threatening its neighbors and
attacking them at will. Israel's savage repression of
the primarily nonviolent first intifada in the OPT
almost makes the recent crushing of the Iranian
popular uprising look like a tea party. When one
thinks of the thousands of home demolitions, the
draconian siege, the multiple invasions of Lebanon,
the constant atrocities and arbitrary killings, the
"separation" wall, and the 300 children murdered in
cold blood last winter, it is not difficult to
conclude that Israel likely holds the regional title
for "worst human rights record."
Moreover, why should Western human rights activists
not focus on exposing Israeli practices in the OPT? I
imagine that supporters of white supremacy in
Apartheid South Africa decried what they saw as the
overemphasis on South African human rights abuses as
well. Like South Africa was, Israel is largely
dependent on Western military, economic and diplomatic
support which therefore warrants a corresponding
degree of critical attention in light of the massive
abuses. It is also widely recognized that Israel is
imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinians in
the OPT, as alluded to above. Both Israel's leading
human rights group and its leading newspaper (Ha'aretz)
have acknowledged this much, as have Former President
Jimmy Carter and countless South African
anti-apartheid activists, including John Dugard and
Desmond Tutu. Apartheid is considered to be a "crime
against humanity" and warrants an international
solidarity effort to overthrow it. Instead of
complaining about the fact that rights groups are
exposing Israeli crimes, Bernstein and his ideological
cohorts should use their influence to help put an end
to the abuses.
Human Shielding
In the most familiar accusation leveled against anyone
Israel attacks, Bernstein desperately parrots the
claims of Israel's state department, noting that Hamas
and Hezbollah "use their own people as human shields."
Unfortunately for Bernstein, the documentary record
reveals that by in large, the accusations of the use
of human shields on the part of Hamas and Hezbollah
are false, or at best, unsubstantiated.
Taking the most recent conflict with Hezbollah in
2006, the US Army War College carried out a study on
counterterrorism and guerilla warfare.Despite their
heavy reliance on Israeli military contacts and
interviews, the study discovered that there was no
"systematic reporting of Hezbollah using civilians in
the combat zone as shields" and "little or no
meaningful intermingling of Hezbollah fighters and
noncombatants. "
An Amnesty International report on the 2006
Hezbollah-Israel war also concluded that no evidence
existed that would suggest the use of civilian
shielding on the part of Hezbollah. However, the study
did find that Hezbollah officials "encouraged or
assisted people who had been unable to leave their
villages in south Lebanon to do so." As for Israel,
Amnesty noted that convoys of fleeing civilians were
deliberately attacked by Israeli forces as they
attempted to evacuate the area.
Human Rights Watch also reached similar conclusions in
its own analysis and report on the 2006 war noting
that "available evidence indicates that in the vast
majority of cases Hezbollah fighters left populated
civilian areas as soon as the fighting started and
fired the majority of their rockets from pre-prepared
positions in largely unpopulated valleys and fields
outside villages." They went on to report that
"Hezbollah fighters had not mixed with the civilian
population" and that "Hezbollah stored most of its
rockets in bunkers and weapon storage facilities
located in uninhabited fields and valleys."
During "Operation Cast Lead" Israel constantly accused
Hamas of using civilians as human shields in an
attempt to explain the massive civilian causalities it
was inflicting on the people of Gaza. None of the
independent reports to emerge since the assault on
Gaza have found any evidence to substantiate Israel's
claims. The Goldstone Report did however discover
multiple cases of Israeli military forces and units
using Palestinian civilians as human shields during
"Operation Cast Lead" and dedicated twenty full pages
to the chronicling of these abuses (pgs. 280-300).
Israeli soldiers have also since came out and
testified as to the IDF's use of Palestinian civilians
as human shields in Breaking the Silence.
The Devil in Tehran
Bernstein cites Hamas and Hezbollah's relationship
with the Iranian regime as yet another reason why HRW
should sympathize with Israel. The Iranian regime
seeks to destroy Israel and all of the world's Jews,
Bernstein says.
Bernstein should know that Iran does not seek to
destroy Israel anymore than it seeks to destroy
itself. If Iran were to even contemplate an attack on
Israel, the entire country would be flattened within
moments by the United States, as everybody knows. I'm
afraid that such statements on the part of Bernstein
simply play into the hysteria conjured up by the US
and Israel in service of American state power.
In fact, Iran has accepted the international consensus
on resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Like every
other Muslim state, it has endorsed the 2002 Arab
Peace Initiative which calls for the establishment of
a Palestinian state in the OPT alongside Israel in its
pre June 1967 borders--precisely the international
consensus on the conflict's resolution. If Iran seeks
to "destroy" Israel, why would it endorse this
mainstream peace plan which recognizes the right of
Israel to live in peace and security in its
internationally recognized borders? Let us not forget
that it is Israel and the United States who have
continued to threaten Iran with annihilation and
obliteration. These threats are also violations of the
UN Charter.
Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!
Bernstein also warns that HRW "know[s] that more and
better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and
are poised to strike again."
Israel has the fourth most powerful military in the
world and a stockpile of nuclear weapons big enough to
wipe Lebanon, Gaza, and Iran off of the face of the
planet. Last winter Israel slaughtered 1,400 people
while sustaining only 13 casualties of its own. The
number of Palestinians killed by Israel in the first
three minutes of "Operation Cast Lead" greatly exceeds
the number of Israelis killed by Hamas in the previous
six years.
Nevertheless it is Hamas and Hezbollah that we should
be worried about, Bernstein tell us. While Israel
starves the Gaza Strip into the Stone Age we are
supposed to believe that Hamas fighters are developing
serious deterrence capabilities. Putting aside the
complete lunacy of Bernstein's false alarms, readers
should keep in mind that the Hezbollah organization
was established to resist the brutal Israeli
occupation of southern Lebanon. Likewise Hamas was
created for the same reason--to resist Israeli
military occupation of their land.
In any event, it truly surpasses belief that these
absurdities could be even be contemplated in a free
society, let alone appear on the pages of the
country's most prominent newspaper.
Self-Defense and Occupation
Implying that Israel acts with proportion and in
self-defense and that the Palestinians are the
aggressors, Bernstein declares that "there is a
difference between wrongs committed in self-defense
and those perpetrated intentionally. " It takes true
intellectual discipline to read these words without
breaking into laughter--or tears. Israel is the
military occupier and has been for over forty years.
By definition, Israel is the aggressor. How can Israel
claim to be defending itself while it is militarily
occupying other people's lands? By any reasonable
standard, one could not call what Israel does
"self-defense. "
And while Gaza is still considered "occupied
territory" by all relevant observers, the illegal
economic blockade is considered to be "an act of war"
under international law. What are the Palestinians
supposed to do? Does Israel have a moral `right' to
impose illegal collective punishment on the
Palestinians in Gaza?
While no party is entitled to attack and target
civilian populations, readers should not forget the
root cause of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians,
which is unending military occupation and
colonization. Virtually the entire world--including
both major Palestinian political groupings and every
Arab and Muslim state--has accepted the principle of
resolving the conflict peacefully via a full Israeli
withdrawal from the occupied territories and the
establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank
and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. It is
Israel—backed by the United States--who refuses to
accept these terms.
Until Robert Bernstein can come to terms with these
basic facts, it is he--not Human Rights Watch--who is
lost in the Mideast.
- Max Kantar is a Michigan based human rights
activist and freelance writer. Contact him at:
maxkantar@gmail. com
Save
Add Comments To This Story