Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
[NGO Monitor] This detailed, empirical research study reviews HRW's activities concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict from 2001 through the middle of 2009. Our investigation shows a consistent pattern of ideological bias, lack of professional qualifications, and unsupported claims based on faulty evidence and analysis. Five detailed case studies of HRW campaigns and publications show consistent bias, false and contradictory statements, and the use of irrelevant evidence and inappropriate methodologies that are neither credible nor verifiable. A broader quantitative analysis of HRW publications from 2002 to 2009 shows greatly disproportionate emphasis on Israel, double standards in the use of terminology such as "war crimes" and "collective punishment," and distorted use of international legal terminology. 2009-09-09 08:00:00Full Article
Experts or Ideologues? Human Rights Watch's Focus on Israel
[NGO Monitor] This detailed, empirical research study reviews HRW's activities concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict from 2001 through the middle of 2009. Our investigation shows a consistent pattern of ideological bias, lack of professional qualifications, and unsupported claims based on faulty evidence and analysis. Five detailed case studies of HRW campaigns and publications show consistent bias, false and contradictory statements, and the use of irrelevant evidence and inappropriate methodologies that are neither credible nor verifiable. A broader quantitative analysis of HRW publications from 2002 to 2009 shows greatly disproportionate emphasis on Israel, double standards in the use of terminology such as "war crimes" and "collective punishment," and distorted use of international legal terminology. 2009-09-09 08:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|