Israel Strikes Back!

“You do know that the English were victims of jewish freedom fighters and jewish terror attacks in the early 40's right? It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the BBC might have some residual feelings about that.”

“I do want to point out that the word "Israel" has many different contexts.

As a Christian, I tend to view the Israel of the Old Testament as a metaphor representative of good, God-fearing people everywhere.

And I think that it is reasonable for good, God-fearing people to oppose a war that results in hundreds of death.

So, an alternative explanation for the unearthing of that book is that God is pissed off about the war against Lebanon and chose this moment to reveal the book.”

“I grew up listening to the BBC World Service on the shortwave. It is a venerable source of information.

It was a major source for freedom in the Communist Bloc during the Cold War.

It was one of the few sources of info. that Nelson Mandela was able to interact with during his imprisonment.

It gave many Americans an upfront view of WWII.

You might not like the news that the BBC reports, but it is a very good source of info.

BTW, this does not absolve a person of the responsibility to view many different sources, but the BBC is mainstream good.”

“I like the BBC for a source of news without an American Bias, but that doesn't mean they don't have a bias of their own.”

“http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1153291996216&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Jul. 25, 2006 22:24 | Updated Jul. 25, 2006 23:01
Be flippant, and never mind the facts
By ANDREA LEVIN

Early media coverage of Hizbullah's aggression against Israel presented a generally sound picture of cause and effect, of the terrorist group's agenda and of Israel's right to remove the menace to its people.

The BBC, however, is a frequent exception.

Correspondent Nick Thorpe, for instance, in a report broadcast on July 15 and posted as well on the network's Web site - "Becoming Israel's greatest enemy" - opted for jarringly flippant characterizations of the present crisis in Lebanon, followed by anti-Israel distortions and platitudes.

An introductory account of the assault of Katyusha rockets raining down on northern Israel, and the less lethal Kassams plaguing the south of the country, are reported like a child's fable.

Thorpe says: "The Kassams mostly needle the Israelis, like pinpricks in the ankles of a giant, taunting him to stamp back with his big, US-issue army boots. The Katyushas are like poisoned arrows. They drive him mad."

Thorpe likes the image of Israel as a mad giant, saying later: "The giant is kicking out, then landing punch after punch on long-suffering Lebanon."

The fact that the allegedly "giant" nation is actually so tiny that its entire northern region and nearly a third of its population are being battered by Katyusha missiles is of no interest to the story-teller.

BUT THE Hizbullah-launched conflagration is only a backdrop to the central, indelible and preferred story, and Thorpe soon segues into his topic - Palestinian feelings and grievances. He notes:

"For many Palestinians there is proof at last that the state which has taken 78% of what they regard as their land since the foundation of Israel in 1948 - and every day seems to take a little more - can actually be beaten."

The 78% Palestinians "regard as their land" is, of course, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but encompasses the legally sovereign and internationally sanctioned State of Israel itself.

Thorpe is comfortable, though, casually repeating without caveat this irredentist position and - less than a year after Israel's withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip - asserting absurdly that "every day" more land is seized.

CLICHES ABOUND. Driving in the West Bank, the BBC correspondent expresses understanding of "the resentment and the sense of oppression the Palestinians feel" as he witnesses "smart, middle-class Israeli settlements [that] have sprung up on virgin hillsides..." These, he claims, are "watered by springs often diverted from Palestinian villages."

Notably, Thorpe is imprecise here, omitting names of any such multiple Palestinian villages robbed of water diverted to neighboring Jewish towns.

In reality, West Bank Arab towns have, during Israel's administering of the area, enjoyed a dramatic improvement in water availability.

In the period, for example, from 1967 to 1995, West Bank Palestinians increased domestic water use by 640%, from 5.4 million cubic meters to to 40 MCM. This occurred as Israel connected hundreds of West Bank towns to its national water carrier and drilled or permitted Palestinians to drill scores of major wells as well as innumerable private ones.

Thorpe makes no note of these nettlesome details in scanning the hills of the West Bank.

BEYOND ALLEGED water and land seizures, the Israeli "occupier" has also committed other severe offenses, including erecting - for no apparent reason mentioned by Thorpe - "tunnels and fences" that "keep Palestinians away from Israeli roads, Israelis settlements and Israeli soldiers." (Terrorism is omitted entirely.)

This seemingly inexplicable, callous and exclusionary practice by the giant Israel has led to Palestinians being "increasingly confined by barriers and checkpoints into little reservations" and, Thorpe observes, "it is little wonder that Palestinians applaud Sheikh Nasrallah, the spiritual head of the Hezbollah, when he calls for the release of some of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel."

Having sketched all these Israeli abuses, Thorpe moves to the concluding section of his account, describing a discussion with Dov, his "old friend" from Jerusalem who works to identify and counter threats to the Jewish people.

He queries: "On your travels, you must often be asked to justify Israel's policy towards the Palestinians."

When Dov replies that he does not "engage with" the issue, Nick Thorpe, BBC expert on Israeli geography, water, land policy, missile defense, history, political strategy and national survival, offers a word of instruction.

He writes: "I disagree, as gently as I can. Until there is a broad peace agreement in the Middle East, it seems to me, not imposed by Israel but agreed by all sides, I fear his people, and for that matter mine, will be targets."

NOTHING IN Thorpe's breezy rendition even hints at decades of Palestinian violence, anti-Jewish hate-mongering or rejectionism. Nothing suggests the self-inflicted disasters.

In a final touch of symbolism, the reporter describes a passing Arab villager "pushing a cart loaded to the sky with white eggs. In the other direction come lorries loaded with shells for Israeli tanks to launch into Lebanon."

As fatuous and simple-minded as this report may be, the animus toward Israel and gross disregard for fact are no joke, but rather all too emblematic of bias in coverage provided by Britain's government-supported network.

The writer is executive director of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.”

“here is another story from CAMERA concerning the BBC.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1149

July 17, 2006 by Ricki Hollander

BBC Does Not Give "Full and Fair Account" of Middle East Conflict


Last year, an independent panel was commissioned by the BBC Board of Governors to review whether the network’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was impartial. The panel concluded there was no systematic or deliberate bias on the part of the network, but that the BBC does not consistently give a full and fair account of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Nowhere is this shortcoming more evident than in BBC’s reporting on the latest Middle East crisis in Israel, Lebanon and Gaza. Even while Israeli cities are being bombarded by Katyushas, Kassams, Fajr’s and other weaponry deployed by Hizballah and Hamas, the BBC Web site is replete with articles devoted exclusively to Israel’s military operations in Lebanon and Gaza, and the preponderance of photos, graphics and human interest stories present the toll of these operations on Lebanese and Gazan residents. By contrast, attacks against Israel are mentioned only in the odd news story which also includes discussion of Israeli counter-attacks.

The human dimension of the Hamas/Israel and Hizballah/Israel wars are depicted only in terms of Arab -- not Israeli-- victims. For example, the following behind-the-scenes, human interest stories appeared on July 17 on BBC’s Middle East Web pages as background to the Middle East conflict:

Difficult days for Gaza residents

Beirut families with nowhere to go

Lebanese residents 'scared to go'

All quiet on the Syrian front

There was nothing at all about the toll on Israel’s residents under attack in their cities by Arab missiles and rockets.

Similarly, World Service News Hour on the morning of July 17, 2006 opened with a news report on Israel’s “relentless bombardment of Lebanon” and an accounting of its victims. There were sound bites from the mayor of the Lebanese city of Sidon and from Kofi Annan, but the Hizballah missile attack on an apartment in the middle of Haifa, one of Israel’s largest cities, was mentioned only in passing.

This was followed by a live report from Roger Heering in Beirut about the atmosphere in the city, a discussion with the Lebanese health minister Mohammed Khalifah.who blamed Israel’s imprisonment of Arabs as the reason for Hizballah “resistance,” and an interview with a man identified as Hussein fleeing the areas of the bombings.


The next segment featured a report from BBC correspondent Jim Muir as he travelled south of Beirut discussing the situation of the people in that area, their anger at Israel and support for Hizballah. The program then moved to an interview with Sidon mayor Abdel-Rahman Bizri who condemned Israel and the U.S. and expressed admiration for Hizballah’s “resistance.” describing the terrorist group as “heroes.” This was followed by an expression of gratitude by the Syrian information minister, Muhsen Bilal, for the friendship and support of the visiting Iranian foreign minister. BBC News Hour next moved to correspondent Heba Salih from a news conference in Damascus by the Iranian foreign minister.

There were no interviews or live reports from Haifa or any Israeli area, no interviews with Israelis holed up in bomb shelters or fleeing the missiles, and no interviews with any Israeli government representatives.


As for analysis, host Claire Bolderson interviewed Mouin Rabani of a Jordanian NGO, the International Crisis Group, about the proposal of sending UN troops to stabilize the area. Rabani voiced a pro-Arab perspective critical of Israel and the U.S. Exonerating the Lebanese government from its failure to extend authority to the Israeli-Lebanese border and disarm Hizballah (as per UN Resolution 1559), Rabani emphasized the need to prevent “Israeli invasions into Lebanese airspace.” He criticized the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice for allowing Israel to respond to Hamas and Hizballah attacks (what he called “the wholesale destruction of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip”) and for her interpretation of the underlying causes of this conflict.” There were no interviews with anyone sympathetic to Israeli or U.S. positions.

In fact, the only Israeli viewpoint heard in the broadcast was in a “dialogue” with a Lebanese representative. The Israeli, Charles Hurvitz, was introduced as a resident of a village near Haifa, “one of the cities that’s been hit by Hizballah rockets,” while the Lebanese, Diana Mukhaled, was identified as a resident of Beirut, “a city that’s been under attack by the Israeli air force since last Thursday.” (It is noteworthy that this reference to Hizballah attacks on Israel—one of the very few within the hour-long news show—is delivered in passive language. This is in striking contrast to the active language used to describe Israel’s military offensive in Beirut.) And while this is supposed to be a dialogue, with both parties giving their perspectives, the Lebanese resident is the one who begins as well as the one who concludes, and is given at least triple the amount of time the Israeli is to make her points.

BBC’s reporting on the latest Middle East conflict typifies the lack of full and fair context mentioned by the independent panel’s report.

1)The focus and emphasis is on Israeli military actions in Lebanon and Gaza while attacks against Israel are mentioned only fleetingly and in passive language.

2) There are no interviews or human interest stories examining Israel’s toll in a conflict started by Hamas and Hizballah.

3) There are no live reports from Israel, but there are several from Lebanon.

4) The Israeli perspective is allowed to be drowned out by the Arab perspective both in the disproportionate number of anti-Israel speakers and the time allotted to each.”

“Given the liberty, most of you don't go off the trail to pee and most of you hide in the crack you just put in the bell curve.”

“Stop it guys! The BBc is very credible! And while we're at it...anyone have $500 they aren't doing anything with?

”

“I am also not a big believer in rules for war. Making it nice makes it so easy to do it all again. And, once again, If BushI had kicked the #&%!$ out of Iraq the first time around, when there was good reason to, we wouldn't have this mess now.

To me halfassed war can be more immorale than all out war.”

“I agree Bear save for the targeting of civilians such as WWII where they just carpet bombed whole cities flat.”

“At least we were daylight terrorists, those dang Brits did their firebombing at night.”

“Kind of left them gun shy though, no?”

“Iran has called for an immediate cease fire and asks that Israel apologize & compensate Lebanon.

Who said war wasn't fun?”

“I say we support the peace plan...since True Peace in War is obtained by the DEFEAT of one party....I say we offer to lend naval gunfire support to the Isrealis (LOL)”

“



”

“This just in from Michellemalkin.com

The NY Sun reports this morning that Kofi Annan's smear against Israel is threatening to "unravel:"

An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan's initial accusation that Israel "deliberately" targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.
A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased observer wrote.


LGF posts a CBC radio interview with retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie discussing the emails. He noted:

"What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."
The full email from the deceased Canadian is at the CTV site.


MY TAKE:
It is now very apparent that opponents of the Isreali action are more motiviated by Anti Semitic attitudes (you know who you are at those Bund meetings (LOL))

In combat if the enemy is occupying a "safe position" the position becomes a target. I have noticed a marked attitude in the mostly LIBERAL northeast to condemn American or Isreali attacks on theoretically "non combat" targets. And demand reparations.

Please explain when we in the South will get reparations for the "military operation that started in Atlanta GA on November 15, 1864, and concluded in Savannah on December 21, 1864.

If you study it the majority of the targets hit were CIVILIAN in nature....”

“XL, I agree. I think that civilian targets are probably justifiable. Certainly, Dresden and Hiroshima are good examples of this.

But how do we do that without making 9/11 or terrorist attacks justifiable?”

“Um, send in UN observers to ask them to play nice?”

“They already have UN observers there in UNIFIL and what do they do? As stated before they:

* UNIFIL observers have frequently revealed the whereabouts of IDF counterinsurgence ambushes to the terrorists;
* UNIFIL observers, happy to augment their meager incomes with fat Iranian-funded wads of dollars by moonlighting for the Hizbolla terrorists, have served as artillery spotters to help direct terrorist fire against Israel;
* UNIFIL observers during the past 6 years have closed a blind eye to the massive construction of bunkers in South Lebanon, as well as the massive stockpiling of deadly weapons intended for use against Israel;
* UNIFIL observers have given free passage to terrorists on their way to infiltrating or attempting to attack Israel.
* UNIFIL observers have kept the terrorists updated and abreast of IDF movements.

There is also an update on the UN observers who were hit. From Michellemalkin.com:

The NY Sun reports this morning that Kofi Annan's smear against Israel is threatening to "unravel:"

An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan's initial accusation that Israel "deliberately" targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.
A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased observer wrote.


LGF posts a CBC radio interview with retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie discussing the emails. He noted:

"What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."
The full email from the deceased Canadian is at the CTV site.
-----------------------------------
Lay down with dogs...”

“deja vue, man. and I was joking about UN observers. All they can do is observe the violence.”

“Reformed...the only way to do that is to seek for the original intent of ending conflict...that is the TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE ENEMY and their will to resist.

This is something Alexander the Great commented on during his drive through what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan. He tried being nice, but he found that the only effective way was total destruction.

Unfortunatly I don't think many people know what that means. It means Dresden times 1000. It means "I am sorry but you chose the wrong place to be a civilian."

One of the real reasons the Germans gave in more readily to the Americans and British was that the Soviets were literally RAPING their way across Germany.

I am not condoning rape, but we need to consider the tactics of many great leaders. There is some advantage to the old three tent method.
The Japanese used to approach an enemy city the first day they were in a white tent, this meant all would be granted safety if surrender occurred. The second day they were in Red tents meaning only women and children would be granted safety. The third day they were in Black tents meaning all would die.”

“It must have sucked to be a japanese soldier having to carry 3 tents in his ruck sack.”

“LOL...actually that was during the time of the Samurai.

But when you read some of the ancient tactics you find some interesting stuff. Many of the BRUTAL conquerors may actually have saved lives in the long run.

Sherman stated that if he could make the war as horrible as possible to the South he might bring about and end and thus reduce the bloodletting.

I sometime wonder if we had fought the intial stages of the Iraq campaign like we did the Second World War how much "insurency" would be going on right now. I mean if Baghadad and surrounding cities had been laid to waste.....”

“The North turned the tide against the South only once they put in charge a general who was willing to put up with horrendous casualties as long as he could keep pushing the Confederate army backwards. The North was better able to cope with a war of attrition better than the South and was able to sue for UNCONDITIONAL surrender.”

“Israel: Decision to Stop Use of "Human Shields" Welcomed
(Jerusalem, May 10, 2002) - The Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) decision to prohibit the use of Palestinian civilians as "human shields" during military operations is an important step forward toward complying with the requirements of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch also urged the IDF to take further action to stop the coerced use of Palestinian civilians during military operations, an issue the IDF said it would "examine," and reiterated its call for a full investigation into allegations of serious law of war violations committed by Israeli forces in Jenin. The Israeli army has taken an important step towards respecting the laws of war," said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "But there are many other Israeli army practices that similarly violate international standards and require the same unequivocal and immediate action."

In response to a High Court of Justice petition by seven Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups, the Israeli army decided on May 9 to "immediately issue an unequivocal order" to its soldiers, stating that soldiers "are absolutely forbidden to use civilians of any kind as a means of 'living shield' against gunfire or attacks by the Palestinian side, or as 'hostages.'" The order states that the prohibition applies "in houses, streets, and in every area and place in which IDF forces are acting." The Israeli army also committed itself to "examine" the use of Palestinian civilians during military operations.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/05/10/isrlpa3914.htm”

“This is odd? Wouldn't it better to ask Hizbollah not to fire at civilians?”

“But when you read some of the ancient tactics you find some interesting stuff. Many of the BRUTAL conquerors may actually have saved lives in the long run.

XL400236
10:26:14 AM

very true. genghis khan was only considered brutal by the conquered aristocrats. even the general populace of his conquered territories preferred him. of course it was those aristocrats who were the only ones that could read at the time that could write "history"”

“Wait, wait...too many people agreeing with me...this is feeling wrong (LOL).

I haven't heard of the IDF using Civilian Shields.....”

“Israel: Don't Coerce Civilians to Do Army's Work
(Jerusalem, April 18, 2002) The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) routinely compel civilians to assist in its military operations, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today. The twenty-four page report, In a Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians During IDF Arrest Operations, documents how the IDF routinely has taken civilians at gunpoint to open suspicious packages, knock on doors of suspects, and search the houses of "wanted" Palestinians during its military

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/04/18/isrlpa3858.htm”

“You say that like its a bad thing.”

“Human Rights Watch is watching the incorrect side.”

“LOL Human Rights Watch...kinda like Amnesty International.....great GOOGLY MOOGLY talk about your hypocritical goombatz.”

“Yes. If any of you moon bats would bother to follow the links, or indeed read the whole article, you would see HRW articles regarding Palestinian & Hezbollah Atrocities.

I chose these because this side was being ignored.

HRW doesn't take sides and that's a lame deflective defense regarding the articles.”

“Bull Crap.”

“HRW doesn't take sides????LOL....yeah well I remember all those protest marches in North Korea (LOL)”

“XL, you can't just throw out something like that without any proof. I demand links to reports of all these protest marches you claim to have occured.”

“LOL..thanks Hyway point made.”

“I guess you win, masterbaiters. So let me rephrase: HRW may report something which you don't like therefore they "take sides"


Where's my eye rolling emoticon
last edited: 7/27/06 2:12:48 PM”

“excuse me, I am just a journeyman baiter. I still have years of training to perform before I become a master.”

“The sad thing is Bear, HRW will SCREAM bloody murder when prisoners of "civilized" nations get so much as a hangnail. But I have yet to hear them issue a condemnation of the torture and mutliation that goes on with the peaceful Islamic Terrorists.

They serve to try and establish a rationale by saying because one or two of our soldiers is a s-head...we are just as bad as the terrorists.”

“http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/26/syria13847.htm

July 26, 2006

Letter to Syrian President Bashar al-Asad on the Conflict in Lebanon
Human Rights Watch thus urges Syria to insist that Hezbollah cease deliberate and indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians; provide public assurances that it is not locating its combatants, or launching attacks, from or near civilian structures or areas; protect the safety and security of, and treat humanely, all captured combatants; undertake investigations to determine whether its forces have committed violations of international humanitarian law; and hold accountable any individuals found to be responsible for serious violations.

Damn those Israeli warmongers. Why didn't they think of sending a letter to Syria?”

“HMM. Bear when will they be having their protest march in Damascus?”

“Human Rights Watch sent me a stern letter because I called my wife a wirty dord last time we argued...”

“Sorry if HRW doesn't do............more for y'all? First you say they take sides, then y'all complain that they only write about abuse. Is that correct? Again, you are not refuting anything the articles say.


I am curious, xl. Please expand on your NK angle.”

“And your crying bias after throwing up politically biased cartoons, Washington Times articles, and Michellemalkin.com???????

Jesus #&%!$ing Christ! HRW reports all abuse. can't say that about any of these other "sources"


”

“WHEN - Human Rights Watch started in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, to monitor the compliance of Soviet bloc countries with the human rights provisions of the landmark Helsinki Accords. In the 1980's, Americas Watch was set up to counter the notion that human rights abuses by one side in the war in Central America were somehow more tolerable than abuses by the other side. The organization grew to cover other regions of the world, until all the "Watch" committees were united in 1988 to form Human Rights Watch.

WHERE - Human Rights Watch is based in New York, with offices in Brussels, London, Moscow, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tashkent, Toronto, and Washington. We often set up temporary offices in regions where we're conducting intensive investigations, and our researchers regularly travel to the countries they cover, unless security concerns prevent it. In cyberspace, Human Rights Watch is located at www.hrw.org. Human Rights Watch tracks developments in more than 70 countries around the world. We also follow issues in women's rights, children's rights, and the flow of arms to abusive forces. Other special projects include academic freedom, the human rights responsibilities of corporations, international justice, prisons, drugs, and refugees. Any and all parties to conflict may find themselves the target of Human Rights Watch. We have exposed abuses by governments and rebels; by Hutu and Tutsi; by Serb, Croat, Bosniak Muslim, and Kosovar Albanian; by Israelis and Palestinians; by Christians and Muslims in the islands of Indonesia and the sands of the Sudan. We frequently call on the United States to support human rights in its foreign policy -- but we also report on human rights abuse inside the United States, such as prison conditions, police abuse, the detention of immigrants, and the death penalty.

WHY - Human Rights Watch believes that international standards of human rights apply to all people equally, and that sharp vigilance and timely protest can prevent the tragedies of the twentieth century from recurring. At Human Rights Watch, we remain convinced that progress can be made when people of good will organize themselves to make it happen.

Some examples:

We successfully led an international coalition to press for the adoption of a treaty banning the use of child soldiers. Currently, as many as 300,000 children are serving in armies and rebel forces around the world. The treaty raises the minimum age for participation in armed conflict to eighteen.
We and our partner organizations in the International Campaign to Ban Landmines won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for our work campaigning against this indiscriminate weapon. The mine-ban treaty was approved more quickly than any big multilateral treaty in history.
We were among the first to call for an international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and have worked extensively with the tribunal's investigators and prosecutors. Six of the seven counts on which the tribunal finally indicted Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 were cases that Human Rights Watch had documented in Kosovo.
We have provided extensive evidence of human rights abuses to the war crimes tribunal for Rwanda, where the genocide in 1994 killed more than half a million people. Our expert testimony and legal analysis have helped convict several genocidaires.
We played an active role in the legal action against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London and helped to buttress the important principle that even former heads of state can be held accountable for the most heinous human rights crimes. The "Pinochet precedent" has established that dictators who block their prosecution at home can be tried anywhere in the world. Human Rights Watch is also leading a global campaign so that all countries ratify the treaty for a permanent international criminal court, to prosecute those accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
We began reporting on human rights abuses in Kosovo in 1990. As Yugoslav stepped up their campaign of terror there, our up-to-the-minute reports helped to shape opinion and mobilize a response.

HOW - The hallmark and pride of Human Rights Watch is the even-handedness and accuracy of our reporting. To maintain our independence, we do not accept financial support from any government or government-funded agency. We depend entirely on contributions from private foundations and from individuals like you. Please join thousands of other concerned global citizens in supporting the work of Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/about/whoweare.html”