SHAUN SACKS | Devious Human Rights Watch diminishes significance of apartheid

In 1978 Robert Bernstein founded Human Rights Watch (HRW). Its mission: to uphold universal moral principles and political independence. After Bernstein’s exit from HRW, the organisation appears to have abandoned its independence. Instead of holding all countries to an equal universal standard, HRW has adopted an increasingly hostile agenda that sees one particular country, Israel, as more worthy of criticism, emotive language and disproportional scrutiny. In 2009 Bernstein felt the need to call out the organisation, writing in the New York Times that when it came to Israel  “Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective”.

Rather than heed its founder, HRW, with a budget larger than many South African provincial governments, decided to double down on its campaign against the Jewish state. 

HRW’s latest effort to this effect came last week in the form of its report, A Threshold Crossed, which accused Israel of apartheid, a crime familiar to South Africans, but wholly unsuitable for the Palestinian context. Despite its length, the report is, in essence, a propagandist document, full of falsehoods and distortions. The world it describes is an alternate reality, one constructed by the same mix of false allegations and legal distortions marketed by the NGO network for decades.

For example, while saying the “apartheid” threshold has only recently been crossed, HRW takes issue with Israel’s founding as a Jewish state and its 1950 Law of Return, which provides diaspora Jews access to Israeli citizenship. Nothing in the law discriminates against non-Jewish Israeli citizens and such a law is not unique; other countries, such as Ireland, Spain and Germany, have legislation to simplify emigration for diaspora populations. These laws are expressly permitted by the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which permits nations to favour certain groups for citizenship.

Ironically, while attempting to trumpet Israel’s apparent discrimination, HRW’s report uses blatantly racist language, casually labelling all Arabs in the area as 'Palestinians', ignoring the rich diversity of Druze, Bedouin and Circassian communities.

More importantly, HRW deviously erases the law’s historical context: the Law of Return was enacted in the shadow of the Holocaust to provide a safe haven for Jews who for centuries suffered persecution. The sharp rise in physical violence and other forms of anti-Semitism around the world in recent years only highlights the need for Israel as a safe refuge from persecution.

In parallel, HRW admits it cannot compare Israel to apartheid SA. Instead, it disassociates apartheid from its original South African context and provides a new definition in an attempt to apply the term to the concept of Jewish sovereignty. In doing so, HRW purposely diminishes the significance of the cruel system of racial bigotry that was at the core of SA’s apartheid system. But perhaps even worse, exploiting the “apartheid” image in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a cynical appropriation of the suffering of the victims of the South African apartheid regime.

Ironically, while attempting to trumpet Israel’s apparent discrimination, HRW’s report uses blatantly racist language, casually labelling all Arabs in the area as “Palestinians”, ignoring the rich diversity of Druze, Bedouin and Circassian communities. The erasure of these people in the supposed name of human rights further reveals the bigoted nature of the report.

No-one is saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not need to be addressed. Yet it is undeniable that Israel’s non-Jewish citizens have full rights, including voting for Knesset representatives and the ability to run for office. South African apartheid was characterised by cruel, systematic, institutionalised dehumanisation and needed to be dismantled. By drawing a direct parallel to SA and labelling Israel as inherently racist, the goal is to delegitimise the concept of a Jewish state, regardless of its borders or policies.

As Bernstein wisely concluded: “Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.”

Shaun Sacks is a senior researcher at the Institute for NGO Research (NGO-Monitor) in Jerusalem.