NGO Monitor Analysis (Vol. 1 No. 12) 20 August 2003

Exchange of letters with Human Rights Watch

The following is an exchange of four letters between the NGO Monitor editor, Professor Gerald Steinberg and the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Ken Roth.

Part 1 The exchange started with Ken Roth's reaction to the article "Human Rights Watch: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back" in NGO Monitor Vol.1, No.8. June 5, 2003 Dear Gerald, This piece reflects a disturbing sloppiness with the facts. Much of this could have been avoided by simply checking with Human Rights Watch or even with knowledgeable people in the Israeli government. I will enumerate seven errors in your piece. I trust you will take steps to circulate a corrected version. 1. You state that HRW's announced policy of "tak[ing] no position on the territorial disputes that lie at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" represents "a potentially important departure from previous publications." That is pure fiction. In its 25 years of existence, Human Rights Watch has never taken a position on territorial disputes, in the Middle East or anywhere else. Our latest reiteration of this longstanding policy is in no sense a "departure," as you easily would have found out had you asked before writing or even checked our website. 2. You state that it is somehow a violation of this policy to comment on the illegality of the Israeli settlements under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But as you should know - or, again, could have discovered by asking - the Fourth Geneva Convention says nothing about the ultimate status of disputed territories. It focuses exclusively on issues of jus in bello, not matters of jus ad bellum. Human Rights Watch, in applying the Fourth Geneva Convention, follows the same rule. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, without commenting on issues of ultimate status, precludes, among other things, both forced deportations of occupied people and the transfer of population to an occupied territory. Even Ariel Sharon recognizes that the territories in question are "occupied." The prohibitions of Article 49 thus apply, rendering Israeli settlement activity illegal by virtue of Israel's facilitation of this transfer through economic incentives and the like. To dismiss this as "partisan" or "political," as you do, is to suggest that it would somehow have been inappropriate to criticize, say, the deportation of Jews during World War II (the inspiration for Article 49) because what was really at issue was a "political" dispute over who controlled their "disputed territory." 3. Your statement that the US State Department "does not view Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as being applicable to the case of Israeli settlement activity" is only partially true, and thus deceptively presented. As is obvious, the State Department has for some time preferred the "obstacle to peace" formulation when referring to the settlements. But as you should know, it has never formally abandoned its prior, public analysis that the settlements are "illegal" under Article 49. A fair presentation of the issue would have mentioned this context. 4. You claim that Human Rights Watch's mention of the widely used term "intifada" "is designed to portray a deliberate campaign of terror as a popular uprising." It is beyond me how you could make this claim in light of Human Rights Watch's extensive, critical study of suicide bombing against civilians. As we stated explicitly, such crimes against humanity have no place in any violent resistance to Israeli occupation. To take from this that we use the term "intifada" to justify attacks on civilians is absurd. Are you making the same allegation against Ha'aretz, which uses the term on virtually a daily basis, or, for that matter, the president and executive director of AIPAC? 5. You state that Human Rights Watch "continues the 'politically correct' practice of ignoring the clear evidence of Yassir Arafat's direct role in directing terror attacks." I might turn that around and say that you continue the "politically correct" practice of accusing Arafat of directing terror attacks without any evidence. If you had read our suicide bombing report carefully, you would have seen that we addressed all of the available evidence concerning Arafat and suicide bombing, and while we found ample evidence that he failed to take steps to rein in the bombing, as you mention, we found no evidence that he was "directing" the bombing. If you have since discovered such evidence, as you summarily claim, I'd be eager to see it, and we, naturally, would act on it. 6. You state that, "[a]s a rule, international humanitarian law does not defend individuals who take up arms, who become, by definition, combatants." I'm not sure what the point of this statement is, but it is wrong. The first three Geneva Conventions of 1949 all protect people who had taken up arms but then lose their combatant status by virtue of injury or capture. 7. Finally, you say in reference to Israel's arrest of our researcher, Miranda Sissons: "After the appropriate police investigation according to due process of law, Ms. Sissions (sic) was released by the Israeli police (a point that was not featured in any HRW press release)." We're puzzled by the reference to a "police investigation according to due process of law." As she would have told you had you asked, Ms. Sissons was questioned by police - and then had her visa cancelled in an Interior Ministry hearing in which officials failed to tell her the charges against her, refused her requests for legal counsel, and didn't even have a copy of the police report. They released Ms. Sissons from immigration detention after intense political intervention by sympathetic foreign governments without explaining why or what lingering restrictions she might still be under. Moreover, if you had bothered to check our website, you would have seen that Ms. Sisson's release was immediately noted on the home page. Gerald, I presume that you, as a scholar, hold yourself to basic academic standards - the foremost being a commitment to factual accuracy. As any scholar knows (or, for that matter, any Human Rights Watch researcher), you can't achieve factual accuracy if you don't check your facts. I am aware of no one at Human Rights Watch with whom you spoke in preparing your latest critique, and it shows. Best, Ken

Part 2 Initial Response by Prof. Gerald Steinberg June 5, 2003 Dear Ken, In the future, I suggest that you dispense with terms that are pejorative, patronizing, and hostile such as "disturbing sloppiness with the facts". Let's try to conduct these exchanges with mutual respect, and, when warranted, agree to disagree. When we are wrong, we will certainly publish a correction, as I assume is the case with HRW. (To prevent future disputes on this issue, please send me information on instances in which HRW published corrections with respect to Israel-related reports.) I also suggest that this exchange of letters (without the personal introductions) be posted on the HRW and the NGO Monitor websites. In terms of substance, an documented below, you will have to admit that many of the "facts" that you cite are either incorrect or simply unsubstantiated claims or opinions. The following responses are not listed in order of importance, but rather follow the sequence and numbering in your letter: 1) You claim that "HRW's announced policy of "tak[ing] no position on the territorial disputes that lie at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is not new. Please send me quotes and sources in which this statement or its equivalent have been included in previous HRW reports, press releases, or web postings with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict. I did not analyze all of HRW's activities in the past 25 years, but in the past three years, there have been many instances of politicized and anti-Israel positions reflected in HRW's activities (including in subsidiaries, such as the ICBL -- the International Committee to Ban Landmines -- where the anti-Israeli political dimension is also blatant). This unacceptable practice must end, and HRW should return its focus to the human rights agenda that is included in its mission statement. 2a) HRW's intense advocacy of a particular policy with respect to settlements, borders, etc., are core issues in the territorial dispute on which HRW claims to have no role. The abuse of the Fourth Geneva Convention for anti-Israeli ideology and politics, and the simple fact that since 1949, the "high contracting parties" were only convened in Geneva once (December 2001, in a high politicized context), and that was to denounce Israel while ignoring terrorism and the history of hatred and warfare, speak for themselves. By advocating a particular position on this blatantly political issue, HRW drains its claim to "take no position" of all content. This is not a complex legal issue, but rather a case of common sense. 2b) Your comparison with the case of deportation of Jews by the Nazis is inappropriate and extremely insensitive, and I strongly urge you stop using such analogies with the Holocaust. My family and millions of other Jews were deported and murdered in the gas chambers-- they did not blow up busses in Berlin or call for the destruction of Germany. 2c) And as for Sharon's statement, your citation is simply incorrect, as were a number of media accounts written by journalists who relied on inaccurate and distorted translations. Sharon spoke to the Knesset Likud caucus in Hebrew, and emphasized the impact of the occupation of 3.5 million Palestinians on Israel as a Jewish state. He explicitly rejected the claim that the territories were "occupied", used the term "disputed territories" http://www.pmo.gov.il/english/ts.exe?tsurl=0.22.7266.0.0 and later referred to the 4000 years of Jewish history in Judea and Samaria. There are, of course, differing views on this point, but Sharon spoke clearly and his words should not be distorted or rewritten. 3) Regarding the State Department, such government organizations and the officials that speak for them usually say what they mean and mean what they say. You do not dispute the evidence on State Department's position rejecting the inapplicability of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlement activity. Instead, your claims on this point are based on an interpretation and opinion that many others reject. The basis of your claims appears, once again, to be political. 4) Regarding the HRW use of the term "intifada" (popular uprising) to describe the brutal campaign of terror, you did not explain why this practice continues. Yes, HRW did the right thing by issuing a detailed and powerful indictment of the Palestinian campaign of suicide bombing (and yes, HRW also hedged its bets by ignoring the evidence of Arafat's role in the extreme violation of human rights --see the next item.) And yes, the use of the term "intifada" in this context by some of the columnists and reporters in Haaretz (but not all), by HRW, or in any other framework is incorrect for precisely these reasons. 5) The evidence against Arafat is easily available and overwhelming, beginning with his own numerous statements encouraging "martyrdom", embracing terrorists, giving them shelter in his headquarters, and directly overseeing the official media which broadcasts incitement and support for terrorists continuously. See http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0lom0 and simply do an internet search. 6) Regarding the applicability of international humanitarian law to terrorists, we seem to agree. Your response relates to "people who had taken up arms but then lose their combatant status by virtue of injury or capture", but the core question relates to terrorists who are not captured, but rather are planning more brutal attacks. Your failure to address this issue suggests that you agree that in such all too common cases, the preservation of human rights justifies preventive action. 7) Regarding the arrest, release and expulsion of HRW employee Miranda Sissons: a) In your response you tacitly agreed that while her arrest was the subject a loud and widely circulated HRW press release, her release was merely posted on the website, and not actively circulated. This asymmetric practice by HRW also speaks for itself. As for her and HRW's version of events, since no verifiable sources are provided, the reader is left to judge the evidence for him/herself, based on the credibility of the claims and evidence. b) The association of HRW "researchers" with members of self-proclaimed extreme pro-Palestinian militant groups such ISM, and the fact that the two British citizens who carried out the bombing in Tel Aviv recently had been in contact with ISM just before the attacks, was conveniently absent in HRW's version, thus casting doubt on its veracity. Perhaps the contacts were innocent, but then why censor this central factor? In summary, while I do not expect we will always agree, I hope that such exchanges will lead you and HRW to be much more careful in both its assertions of "facts" and in the interpretations and involvement in issues related to the very complex Arab-Israeli conflict. Gerald Steinberg

Part 3 Ken Roth's Reaction to Prof. Gerald Steinberg's Initial Response July 2, 2003 1. You stated in NGO Monitor [Vol 1, No.8] that HRW's announced policy of "tak[ing] no position on the territorial disputes that lie at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" represents "a potentially important departure from previous publications." I noted that this was pure fiction. I explained that in our 25 years of existence, Human Rights Watch has never taken a position on territorial disputes, in the Middle East or anywhere else. Thus, our latest reiteration of this longstanding policy is in no sense a "departure." You responded: "Please send me quotes and sources in which this statement or its equivalent have been included in previous HRW reports, press releases, or web postings with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict." Belated as your request is, I'm happy to respond. This information also is readily available by searching our website. In HRW's first major report on Israeli conduct in the occupied territories, published in August 1990, we said: "In undertaking this examination, Middle East Watch [our name at the time] takes no position on Palestinian self-determination or the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These issues lie beyond our mandate." Or, to cite an example of our reporting on Palestinian abuses, we said in a February 1995 report: "Human Rights Watch's mandate centers on monitoring and promoting respect for the rights enshrined in the internationally recognized instruments of civil and political rights and of humanitarian law. It takes no position on the issue of self-determination or the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Comparable statements have been made about every contested territory on which HRW reports. It has been a core principle of our work since our founding, not a new "departure." 2. You stated in NGO Monitor that it is somehow a violation of this policy of neutrality in territorial disputes to comment on the illegality of the Israeli settlements under the Fourth Geneva Convention. I pointed out that the Fourth Geneva Convention says nothing about the ultimate status of disputed territories. It focuses exclusively on issues of jus in bello, not matters of jus ad bellum. Human Rights Watch, in applying the Fourth Geneva Convention, follows the same rule. Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, without commenting on issues of ultimate status, precludes the transfer of population to an occupied territory. It thus prohibits Israeli settlement activity by virtue of Israel's facilitation, through economic incentives and the like, of this transfer of its own population. You don't respond substantively to this straightforward legal point. Instead, you charge that this is an "abuse of the Fourth Geneva Convention for anti-Israeli ideology and politics." The sole evidence you cite to support this claim is the fact that the only time that the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have convened (twice, not once, as you state) was to address Israeli conduct. That, of course, is a comment on selectivity in the use of this one method of enforcement (other methods for enforcing the Geneva Conventions have been applied more broadly, such as the international war crimes tribunals established for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone). Your comment in no sense addresses the substantive requirement of Article 49, paragraph 6, which by your silence I presume you tacitly accept outlaws Israeli settlement activity. However, you do take issue with my comment that even Ariel Sharon recognizes that the territories in question are "occupied." You claim that his comments have been mistranslated, and, of course, we are all aware that he has since backtracked on the point. But, frankly, this should not be a controversial issue. The law of belligerent occupation is the legal foundation for Israel's entire military court system in the West Bank and Gaza, and has been used extensively by the High Court in adjudicating cases. For example, in the recent Ajuri case (sanctioning the "reassignment of residence" of two members of the Ajuri family to Gaza), the court applied Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the issue. Similarly, the Israeli military court in Salem, in the 'Oderh case, recently ruled that its authority to sentence Palestinians from Area A draws on Article 66 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, due to the existence of a military occupation in these areas. President Bush made a similar point on April 4, 2002, when he said, in relevant part: "Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end." Finally, I noted that your dismissal of HRW's application of Article 49 as somehow "partisan" or "political" suggests that it would somehow have been inappropriate to criticize, say, the deportation of Jews during World War II (the inspiration for a separate section of Article 49 prohibiting forced deportation) because what was really at issue was a "political" dispute over who controlled their "disputed territory." You respond that it is "inappropriate" and "insensitive" to make analogies to the Holocaust, because millions of Jews were murdered, and "they did not blow up busses in Berlin or call for the destruction of Germany." But the prohibitions of Article 49 are unconditional; they are not dependent on an assessment of the validity of the cause of the people under occupation or the behavior of their military forces. 3. You stated in NGO Monitor that the U.S. State Department "does not view Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as being applicable to the case of Israeli settlement activity." I noted that this is only partially true, and thus deceptively presented. The State Department for some time has preferred the "obstacle to peace" formulation when referring to the settlements. But the State Department has never formally abandoned its prior, formal analysis that the settlements are "illegal" under Article 49. A fair presentation of the issue, I pointed out, would have mentioned this context. Your response ducks the issue. You note that State Department officials "usually say what they mean and mean what they say." But that, of course, is beside the point, since my comment didn't deny that the State Department prefers the "obstacle to peace" formulation today. Instead, I pointed out that the State Department has never formally rejected its earlier formal analysis that the Israeli settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention. This analysis can be found in the April 21, 1978 Opinion of the Office of Legal Advisor of the U.S. Department of State, which states in relevant part: "Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention…provides, in paragraph 6: "'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' "Paragraph 6 appears to apply by its terms to any transfer by an occupying power of parts of its civilian population, whatever the objective and whether involuntary or voluntary…. "The Israeli civilian settlements thus appear to constitute a 'transfer of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies' within the scope of paragraph 6…." The Opinion goes on to reject the common Israeli government argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention is inapplicable because Jordan and Egypt were never legitimate sovereigns over the West Bank and Gaza: "It has been suggested that the principles of belligerent occupation, including Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, may not apply in the West Bank and Gaza because Jordan and Egypt were not the respective legitimate sovereigns of these territories. However, those principles appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of those territories. Protecting the reversionary interest of an ousted sovereign is not their sole or essential purpose; the paramount purposes are protecting the civilian population of an occupied territory and reserving permanent territorial changes, if any, until settlement of the conflict…." This gist of this statement was reiterated, for example, on November 27, 1989, by then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering: "Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation." See also Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 21, 1980: "U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process….Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in the judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories." You go on to say: "You do not dispute the evidence on State Department's position rejecting the inapplicability [sic] of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlement activity." The above quotations should amply show why I DO dispute that proposition. As I explained, the State Department has never repudiated its analysis that the Fourth Geneva Convention DOES apply to Israeli settlement activity. 4. You claimed in NGO Monitor that HRW's rare mention of the widely used term "intifada" "is designed to portray a deliberate campaign of terror as a popular uprising." I responded that your claim is outrageous in light of HRW's extensive, critical study of suicide bombing against civilians. As we stated explicitly, such crimes against humanity have no place in any violent resistance to Israeli occupation. We have also reported on and condemned other Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians as well. It is thus difficult to fathom how, in this light, HRW's use of the term "intifada" justifies attacks on civilians. Ha'aretz, I noted, uses the term on virtually a daily basis, and even the president and executive director of AIPAC have used the term. Ignoring AIPAC, you respond that a campaign of terror is not a popular uprising. But, of course, a campaign of terror hardly sums up the Palestinian response to the Israeli occupation since Ariel Sharon's ill-fated visit to the Temple Mount/Haram-esh-Sharif of September 2000. If the only response of Palestinians had been to launch terrorist attacks, you would have had a point. But since the Palestinian response has been far more multifaceted, the use of the term "intifada" cannot be equated with condoning terrorism, particularly when used by an organization such as HRW that has so unequivocally denounced terrorism. In this regard, I appreciate your concession that "HRW did the right thing by issuing a detailed and powerful indictment of the Palestinian campaign of suicide bombing," but your analysis effectively ignores that report. 5. You stated in NGO Monitor that HRW "continues the 'politically correct' practice of ignoring the clear evidence of Yassir Arafat's direct role in directing terror attacks." I responded that, in fact, it is you who continues the "politically correct" practice of accusing Arafat of directing terror attacks without any evidence. I noted that if you had read our suicide bombing report carefully, you would have seen that we addressed all of the available evidence concerning Arafat and suicide bombing, and while we found ample evidence that he failed to take steps to rein in the bombing, we found no evidence that he was "directing" the bombing. I concluded by noting that if you had since discovered evidence to the contrary, as you summarily claimed to have, I would be eager to see it. You respond by citing Arafat's statements encouraging "martyrdom," his sheltering of terrorists in his headquarters, and his oversight of the official media which "broadcasts incitement and support for terrorists continuously." But you obviously realize that this complicity, of which HRW has been highly critical, is different from your original claim that Arafat has a "direct role in directing terror attacks." Presumably for evidence of this claim, you refer me to a report on the Israeli Foreign Ministry's website. It, indeed, opens with the summary conclusion: "Yasser Arafat was personally involved in the planning and execution of terror attacks. He encouraged them ideologically, authorized them financially and personally headed the Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades organization." This reasserts the official Israeli position, with which we are familiar. In preparing our report on suicide bombings, HRW examined the documents made public by the IDF from those seized in Palestinian offices ­ documents that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the IDF said proved Arafat's direct responsibility for Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians. On the basis of that examination, we concluded that "senior PA officials fostered an atmosphere of impunity" but found no evidence "that President Arafat or other senior PA officials ordered, planned, or carried out suicide bombings or other attacks against civilians." I refer you to Chapter 7 of that report, which describes our findings and analysis in detail. Since that report was released seven months ago, we have seen no evidence, from the Israeli government or elsewhere, including yourself, that would modify that conclusion. 6. You said in NGO Monitor that, "[a]s a rule, international humanitarian law does not defend individuals who take up arms, who become, by definition, combatants." This misstated international law. In fact, the first three Geneva Conventions of 1949 all protect people who had taken up arms but then lose their combatant status by virtue of injury or capture. Changing the subject, you now say that "the core question relates to terrorists who are not captured, but rather are planning more brutal attacks." In such cases, you note, "the preservation of human rights justifies preventive action." But preventive action itself must respect international human rights and humanitarian law. Too often, to my regret, Israel's conduct has not done so. Nor, of course, has Palestinian conduct. Even so, a basic tenet of international humanitarian law is that abuses by one side cannot justify abuses by the other. 7. Finally, you said in NGO Monitor in reference to Israel's arrest of HRW's researcher, Miranda Sissons: "After the appropriate police investigation according to due process of law, Ms. Sissions [sic] was released by the Israeli police (a point that was not featured in any HRW press release)." I noted that the reference to a "police investigation according to due process of law" could hardly be sustained ­ a fact that you would have quickly discovered had you made inquiries before writing. Had you done so, you would have learned that Ms. Sissons, after having been questioned by the police, had her visa cancelled in an Interior Ministry hearing in which officials failed to tell her the charges against her, refused her requests for legal counsel, and didn't even have a copy of the police report ­ hardly actions "according to due process of law." After intense political intervention by sympathetic foreign governments, the police ultimately released Ms. Sissons from immigration detention without explaining why or what lingering restrictions she might still be under. Her release was immediately noted on HRW's home page. Your only substantive response is to claim that "no verifiable sources are provided." To the contrary, the above account is from an eyewitness ­ Ms. Sissons. Your account, by contrast, is not. You go on to state: "The association of HRW 'researchers' [sic] with members of self-proclaimed extreme pro-Palestinian militant groups such ISM [International Solidarity … was conveniently absent in HRW's version, thus casting doubt on its veracity." In fact, the HRW press release said: "Researcher Miranda Sissons, an Australian national, was detained while making a routine research visit to the offices of the International Solidarity Movement in Beit Sahour in the West Bank." You ask why we didn't mention that two British citizens who carried out a bombing in Tel Aviv had recently been in contact with ISM just before the attacks, but at the time that was common knowledge, which is precisely why we mentioned ISM in our press release. You also complain that the news of Ms. Sissons's release was "merely" posted on HRW's website. But since the website has some 20,000 unique visitors a day, "merely" is not the right adverb. In most of these cases, a simple inquiry would have highlighted the fallacy of your presumptions. If HRW commented first and investigated later, NGO Monitor would rightly criticize us. I would expect you to apply the same standards to your own work. Sincerely, Ken Roth - Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

Part 4 Prof. Gerald Steinberg's Final Reponse to the Ken Roth's Reaction to NGO Monitor Vol.1, No.8. August 20, 2003 Dear Ken, Since many of the points in your letter of July 2 are reiterations of June 5 letter, I will not respond again point by point, or repeat our differences in interpretation and application of international law and US government policy. Readers can consider the evidence and reach their own conclusions on these highly complex and often abused concepts, as well as on HRW's continuing policy which ignores the evidence of Yassir Arafat's responsibility for Palestinian terror attacks. Instead, and viewing these issues and HRW's activities from a wider context, your explanations continue the policy of the misplaced emphasis placed on allegations of Israeli human rights infractions, while often denying Israel's basic right to self-defense. The repetition of HRW's standard claims to be non-political and non-ideological lose credibility in the face of the numerous examples of precisely this type of political and ideological anti-Israel statements and press campaigns, as highlighted in the case of Durban, in the May 2003 press release (NGO Monitor 1.8 http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n08/v1n08-cont.htm ) and again regarding the amendment to Israel's citizenship law (see the analysis in NGO Monitor 1.12; August 2003). Similarly, while you repeatedly note HRW's report denouncing Palestinian terrorism, this report appears to the single exception in a much more frequent litany of HRW's systematic denunciations of the necessary Israeli responses to violations of the most basic human right to life. Unfortunately, in the politically correct atmosphere that has permeated the international "human rights" community, including HRW, Israel has been placed in a unique category, subject to constant condemnation, in which legitimate self-defense is distorted into immoral behavior. Finally, in an atmosphere of increasing antisemitism around the world, I reiterate the request that you avoid inappropriate and insensitive comparisons between Israeli responses to terrorist brutality and the deportation of Jews by the Nazis. Your response to this request and attempt to justify such a vile comparison was entirely inadequate, particularly for the head of a major universal human rights organization. I look forward to your response, which will be posted in the correspondence section of www.NGO-monitor.org along with the previous letters. Gerald Steinberg - Editor NGO Monitor August 20 2003