To the BBC: Quoting ‘Human Rights Watch’ - is NOT impartiality

To: newsonline@bbc.co.uk
Subject: re report UN scrutinises Gaza "War Crimes" and Human Rights Watch
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:44:18 -0400

To BBC Online
To BBC News Online

Dear Editor;

Sub: Quoting ‘Human Rights Watch' - is NOT impartiality

You have just published a report entitled "UN scrutinises Gaza 'war crimes'   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8280181.st

In this you quote from the NGO Human Rights Watch as if it has some status and impartiality in this issue. In fact, Human Rights Watch has been badly discredited recently. It is one of the many problems of the Goldstone Report that the judge Richard Goldstone is a member of this group and refers to its claims repeatedly. 

It now transpires that the senior members of Human Rights Watch have all subscribed to extremist viewpoints with a marked anti-Israel agenda. Joe Stork supported the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes, another senior member Sarah Leah Whitson (quoted in your piece) was previously a director of an Arab activist group, and now their military expert Mark Garlasco has been shown to be a collector of Nazi war memorabilia and blogs about how "cool" it is to wear Nazi-stamped garments. Furthermore, the organization recently went to Saudi Arabia for funding with their message being that they were fighting against pro-Israel groups.

I feel that your article lacks impartiality and accuracy by quoting Human Rights Watch without informing the public of these facts.

For more details on Sarah Leah Whitson see http://ngo-monitor.org/article.php?viewall=yes&id=2597
For more details on Human Rights Watch lack of credibility see http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=2651

Robin Stamler