An interesting article. What, if anything, did Human Rights Watch have to say about the case of Atefeh Rajabi, the 16 year-old Iranian girl who was hanged for "acts incompatible with chastity" in 2004? And what does Human Rights Watch say about the appalling situation in the Darfur region of Sudan?

Critical examination of the agendas of NGOs is legitimate. But my view is that NGO Watch is a bogus Israeli cheer-squad. NGO Monitor also accuse Amnesty International, Oxfam and Medecins Sans Frontieres of anti-Israeli bias. Check their website http://www.ngo-monitor.org and draw your own conclusions.

EnerGee, if you're so concerned about HRW's coverage of Iran, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A LOOK??!! Below is part of their backgrounder on Iran:

"Respect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and opinion, deteriorated considerably in 2005. The government routinely uses torture and ill-treatment in detention, including prolonged solitary confinement, to punish dissidents. The judiciary, which is accountable to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has been at the center of many serious human rights violations. Abuses are perpetrated by what Iranians call “parallel institutions”: paramilitary groups and plainclothes intelligence agents violently attack peaceful protesters, and intelligence services run illegal secret prisons and interrogation centers. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elected in June 2005, appointed a cabinet dominated by former members of the intelligence and security forces, some of whom are allegedly implicated in the most serious human rights violations since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established twenty-six years ago, such as the assassination of dissident intellectuals."

good point JohnJ, just goes to show the neo-cons on this forum can't be bothererd doing any research or basing their posts on any sort of facts

I'm not a neo-con and I haven't vetted NGO Watch, but it does seem to me that NGOs often apply a weighting that actions with negative results by Western/Western-aligned countries are far more serious than those by others; perhaps they have a rule that, say, 10 deaths caused by westerners is morally equivalent to 1000 deaths caused by undemocratic non-westerners. Or perhaps they are merely acknowledging that they have no influence over the worst offenders. Or perhaps it's anti-Western racism (by Westerners) at work? Or that many NGO leaders are Westerners and feel more mortified by the alleged sins of their compatriots than by those of others?

Answers, please, on a postcard to anywhere but here.

Oh, God, yet another of these tedious Zionist finger pointing exercises. HRW, avert your gaze from our war crimes and focus on somewhere else, anywhere will do, so long as it's not us. You buggers have no shame.

Thank you for introducing me to HRW.

Heaven knows there is little enough hypocrisy and self-satisfied claptrap in this world, so to uncover such a motherlode of smug finger-waving is pure delight.

A glance through its pages shows clearly the value of being able to pontificate at will, on any subject, from the safety of a desk in New York City. Such a sharp perspective on the issues, everything neatly categorized as either black or white. Such ineffable priggishness. Such oozing self-righteousness.

Johnj points out that NGO-watch might be a tad biased in its views, but nor is HRW exactly even-handed in its praise or blame. Their snide diatribe against internet companies, berated simply for observing the laws of the countries in which they operate, is a good case in point.

How petty - but how self-satisfying - to plough a pseudo-moral furrow by claiming that the companies' actions equate to aiding and abetting censorship. I suspect that these are the same people who would encourage censorship in their own country if they could - perhaps under the banner of Women's or Children's Rights - and see no irony in their actions.

If I were younger and less discriminating in the company I keep during my working hours, I would apply to them for a job. I am very capable of churning out emotional garbage to order, so long as someone is prepared to pay me. And there is the usual featherbedding that goes along with government jobs, or any other role that bears absolutely no responsibility for what it says or does.

"HRW offers generous employer-paid benefits to all staff... medical, dental, and vision care for you, your dependents and domestic partner (same or opposite sex)... 20 vacation days... "bankable" sick days... an outstanding pension plan (a 10% employer contribution after two years of employment, no employee match required, fully vested)... in-house training programs, tuition reimbursement... flexible spending accounts, pre-tax transit reimbursements... free auditing at a local university... parental leave, 3-month paid sabbaticals...flexible schedules... telecommuting."

Sure beats working for a living.

You can get reports from HRW by joining here http://www.hrw.org/act/subscribe-mlists/subscribe.htm

I get their weekly report and I find it covers a broad range of areas. Whether one country gets more or less than its fair share of coverage is a matter of judgement.

A very intelligent comment Pericles, you make a lot more sense than some of the others who commented earlier.

Whether or not HRW is bias, & I'll let the figures quoted in the article speak for themselves. There is another angle which builds in bias, that is, some HRW/NGO reports get a greater coverage than others. A number of media outlets are more prone to give anti-western reports coverage than others.

Following on from that, I noted in the recent conflict in Lebanon how many young gun reporters, out to make a name for themselves, were trying to out do each other re damage to civilian targets and how utterly uncritical/unquestioning the bulk of them were (the lead news story in the SBS news of 15/08/06 was a stark example-to cite only one)

That's funny, Horus, the rest of us couldn't help but note how many trigger-happy Israeli troops were outdoing each other in slaughtering Lebanese civilians and how utterly uncritical/unquestioning of their political masters they were.

We also can't help but note how many of you Zionist propagandists are outdoing one another on OLO in covering up their slaughter and destruction and how utterly uncritical/unquestioning of Israel to the point of delusion you are.

Who is this mysterious “THE REST OF US ” Strewth ?
You, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hassan Nasrallah & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ?

I 've seem Israeli troops openly question the whys & wherefores of the war.I've seen Israeli civilians openly protest about one or other aspect of the war.
But not so much as an objective murmur or doubt raised from the other side re their position.
The great totalitarian tyrants of the past would have given their right arm for such a compliant flock.

Strewth,Strewth I must get you name right !
For some strange reason, I keep wanting to call you "MEL"...
You’re not in the movie business are you?

Oh dear, Pericles, if there was ever an example of shooting the messenger that was it.

Maybe it's not what they say but how they say it that's important in these Forums.

"Two wrongs don"t make a right."
Which ever side you take, your team cannot win every match,or was it a battle or was it a war.
Thank got we are still living.

Horus,

"I've seen Israeli troops openly question...the war." While firing their cannons or dropping their bombs? And of course, you'd be the first to accuse Israeli refuser groups such as Courage to Refuse and antiwar demonstrators of treachery, now wouldn't you? As for "the other side", I guess they were clearly too busy dodging, not always successfully, falling masonry, and being shredded by Israeli ordnance to engage in protest.

It's OK, Horus, you don't have to make veiled allusions to Mel Gibson. You can go ahead and smear me as an anti-Semite if you wish. The sting went out of that one long ago. God help Jews facing real anti-Semitism. Who's going to take the word seriously after the likes of you have relentlessly cheapened the coin?

As for movies, for your sanity and ours, give up on those endless reruns of 'Exodus', will you?

rache, shooting the messenger is one thing. Questioning the credibility of the messenger is entirely another.

My point is that it is extremely easy to sit in an ivory tower, remote from the action, in a comfortable office and with a coddled first-world existence, and produce admonitory finger-wagging against a variety of trendy targets.

I'm sure that they are all well-meaning, caring folk who tut-tut their way through the evening news at the horrors of the world, and that they put every ounce of their compassion into the articles they write.

But that doesn't make them credible. Just smug.

As someone who spends considerable time watching how various NGO's report on abuses, 2 facts stand out. The first is that on any measure Israel is singled out unfairly and receives harsher treatment and greater scrutiny versus countries such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, China etc. The second fact is that many NGO's do put out critical pieces on some of these other countries but the media simply has little interest in running them. It is simply a bigger and easier to sell media story to beat up on the Israeli's than explain the history of the LRA in Uganda or the systematic detention and torture of both right and left-wing intellectuals in Cuba. Israel is no angel but to try and compare it to China or Iran is pure madness!