HRW-Human Rights Watch Organization; an American Non-Profit, Illegally Promoting Hate With Pro-Palestinian & Anti-Israel, Anti-Jewish Agendas:
By Marc Chamot
The Human Rights Watch Organization is in deep doo-doo these days. People are wondering how a non-profit 501 (c) (3) can legally exist in America, when they are actively promoting RACISM and anti-Semitism?
This once unique world watch organization has been infiltrated by pro-Arab, Hamas, and Hezbollah terrorists groups, who are anti Israel, anti-Jews and Jew haters as a whole, mainly with the likes of their Middle East Director, the none other, American RACIST, Sarah Leah Whitson.
Before she joined this organization in 2004, she was on the board of the New York chapter of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinians Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
She’s been doing a whole lot of fundraisings for the organization, and it’s taken her to the Middle East, mainly to countries who despise Israel or want to hurt it, like Saudi Arabia.
Last month, Robert Bernstein, the founder and former longtime chairman of Human Rights Watch, issued a stinging condemnation of the organization for its maniacal anti-Israel bias. This was only the latest blow to HRW’s credibility on Israel-related issues.
It started when I reported that HRW’s Middle East director, Sarah Leah Whitson, had taken a fundraising trip to Saudi Arabia. Appearing before Saudi elites, including several government officials, Whitson appealed for support for its coverage of Israel’s alleged human rights violations in Gaza and its battles with “pro-Israel pressure groups in the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations.” Whitson dismissed criticism of her junket as “racist.”
The Saudi trip opened the floodgates, leading an army of bloggers to investigate HRW’s staff. The organization’s objectivity was called into serious question.
It turns out that when Whitson joined HRW in 2004, she was serving her second term on the board of the New York chapter of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee. In 2002, at the height of the second intifada, she organized and attended a lobbying mission to U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan to support the Palestinian side and condemn Israel.
She’s also a self-described big fan and admirer of the fanatically anti-Israel polemicist Norman Finkelstein, an anti-Israel extremist and avowed Hezbollah supporter. Not surprisingly, one of Whitson’s first acts at HRW was to support the international boycott of Caterpillar for selling equipment to the Israeli army.
Whitson’s deputy, Joe Stork, publicly supports the use of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Stork’s only obvious credential for the HRW position was his two decades of experience as a vitriolic, leftist, anti-Israel polemicist for Middle East Report.
Perhaps most embarrassing, bloggers discovered that Marc Garlasco, HRW’s military analyst and a frequent critic of Israel, was an enthusiastic collector of Nazi memorabilia, prone to making comments on Internet discussion boards like, “The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!” (Garlasco has been suspended pending an investigation.)
Several other HRW Middle East division hires have been anti-Israel activists, including a writer for a Web site with the charming name Electronic Intifada. There are, needless to say, no HRW Middle East employees with a similar record of pro-Israel activism.
None of this would matter if HRW, in practice, showed a penchant for strict neutrality. Instead, HRW focuses disproportionately on Israel; accuses Israel of “indiscriminate bombing” of Lebanon and Gaza; and reports rumors, gossip and hearsay from Palestinian sources as facts.
When critics point out errors, omissions and biases in HRW’s reports on Israel, its officials don’t just refuse dialogue, they respond with contempt. HRW Director Ken Roth claims that “we report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception.”
In short, if HRW wants to regain its credibility, a housecleaning is needed. HRW’s board needs to send Garlasco, Roth, Whitson, Stork and the rest of the current crew packing.
HRW can then bring in some sincere human rights advocates without anti-Israel ideological priors to staff its Middle East division. Or, HRW can continue to preach to the leftist, anti-Israel choir. But it shouldn’t expect anyone else to pay attention.
So why isn’t anybody initiating an IRS review on HRW over their non-profit statuses?
With its anti-Israel agendas, this organization is seriously violating its tax-exempts under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Who are currently eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.Name:
Human Rights Watch
Address:
350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Phone:
212-290-4700
Web Address:
http://www.hrw.org/According to the
Better Business Bureau, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) does not meet the following 2
Standards for Charity Accountability. Standard 1: Oversight of Operations and Staff - Organizations shall have a board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity's operations and its staff. Indication of adequate oversight includes, but is not limited to, regularly scheduled appraisals of the CEO's performance, evidence of disbursement controls such as board approval of the budget, fund raising practices, establishment of a conflict of interest policy, and establishment of accounting procedures sufficient to safeguard charity finances.
HRW does not meet this Standard because it reports that no member of the board is assigned the responsibility of serving as the treasurer of the board of directors. In general, the board's treasurer helps provide independent oversight of the organization's finances.
Standard 18: Privacy for Written Appeals & Internet Privacy - Address privacy concerns of donors by (a) providing in written appeals, at least annually, a means (e.g., such as a check off box) for both new and continuing donors to inform the charity if they do not want their name and address shared outside the organization, (b) providing a clear, prominent and easily accessible privacy policy on any of its websites that tells visitors (i) what information, if any, is being collected about them by the charity and how this information will be used, (ii) how to contact the charity to review personal information collected and request corrections, (iii) how to inform the charity (e.g., a check off box) that the visitor does not wish his/her personal information to be shared outside the organization, and (iv) what security measures the charity has in place to protect personal information.
HRW does not meet provision (b)(iv) of this Standard because the privacy policy on its website,
http://www.hrw.org/, does not indicate what security measures the organization has in place to protect the personal information of visitors to its website.
The organization meets the remaining provisions of this Standard.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) meets the remaining 18
Standards for Charity Accountability.HRW investigates human rights conditions in over 70 countries. Through its publications HRW reports on abuses against women, children and refugees as well as the mistreatment of factory workers, prisoners in detention, migrants, and gays and lesbians. HRW provides training in human rights principles and methodologies to local activists. Through HRW's reporting and advocacy, it promotes change of policies and practices, and informs the public about human rights issues.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, HRW's program expenses were:
Other programs
9,252,974
Africa
5,532,631
Europe and Central Asia
4,001,853
Asia
3,212,850
Middle East and North Africa
2,258,459
Women's rights
1,854,228
Children's rights
1,641,064
Americas
1,479,265
International justice
1,385,121
United States
1,195,673
Total Program Expenses:
$31,814,118
Chief Executive : Kenneth Roth, Executive Director
Compensation*:
$404,700
Chair of the Board: Jane OlsonChair's Profession / Business Affiliation: Human Rights ActivistBoard Size: 33Paid Staff Size: 265
*July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008 compensation includes annual salary and, if applicable, benefit plans, expense accounts, and other allowances.
Method(s) Used:
Direct mail, special events, grant proposals, Internet appeals, and planned giving.
Fund raising costs were 20% of related contributions. (Related contributions, which totaled $43,762,274, are donations received as a result of fund raising activities.)