For the defenders of HRW

[Loren Pechtel]

Outgoing Human Rights Watch senior editor blasts group’s ‘infected’ work on Israel

In email to staff upon departure, Danielle Haas claims 'years of institutional creep culminated in response to Oct. 7 that surrendered group's duty to stand for human rights of all'

www.timesofisrael.com

Edit: Since some seem to feel that the thread title + unfurl isn't enough to make the point. This is a whistleblower pointing out the bias in their reporting.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I have a question for you - has The Times of Israel ever criticized the Israeli response to the Hamas attack? I ask this as I have absolutely no familiarity with this newspaper.
Also, do you think it right to just post a link without adding a personal comment or summary to explain the linked item?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Also, do you think it right to just post a link without adding a personal comment or summary to explain the linked item?

Not only is it not right, it’s a violation of forum policy, as stated in the PSA at the top of this very page.

 

[TomC]

Also, do you think it right to just post a link without adding a personal comment or summary to explain the linked item?

Not only is it not right, it’s a violation of forum policy, as stated in the PSA at the top of this very page.

If you don't recognize the OP title as an explanatory comment I'm not sure what to tell you.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Also, do you think it right to just post a link without adding a personal comment or summary to explain the linked item?

Not only is it not right, it’s a violation of forum policy, as stated in the PSA at the top of this very page.

If you don't recognize the OP title as an explanatory comment I'm not sure what to tell you.
Tom

Obviously.

 

[bilby]

Also, do you think it right to just post a link without adding a personal comment or summary to explain the linked item?

Not only is it not right, it’s a violation of forum policy, as stated in the PSA at the top of this very page.

If you don't recognize the OP title as an explanatory comment I'm not sure what to tell you.
Tom

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

That the audience so defined is almost certainly an empty subset of the board's membership, makes the offence of offering no explanatory comment nor opinion more egregious, not less.

 

[TomC]

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

I understood it. Why can't you?
I don't have a firm opinion about HRW.
Sounds to me like a well intentioned, but agenda driven, media company.

That the audience so defined is almost certainly an empty subset of the board's membership, makes the offence of offering no explanatory comment nor opinion more egregious, not less.

I'm guessing that some members of this board have more confident opinions than I have. Including opinions that are indistinguishable from "defenders of HRW".

If LP's posting style doesn't work for you, why are you bothering with this thread at all?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

I understood it. Why can't you?
I don't have a firm opinion about HRW.
Sounds to me like a well intentioned, but agenda driven, media company.

. It is not a media company. It is a non-profit organisation that monitors, reports on, and lobbies for rights.

Which suggests you didn’t understand it.

[

 

[TomC]

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

I understood it. Why can't you?
I don't have a firm opinion about HRW.
Sounds to me like a well intentioned, but agenda driven, media company.

. It is not a media company. It is a non-profit organisation that monitors, reports on, and lobbies for rights.

Which suggests you didn’t understand it.

[

How does HRW do anything?

Nothing personal, but you sound like a "defender of HRW".
I'm extremely cynical, myself.
Tom

 

[bilby]

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

I understood it. Why can't you?
I don't have a firm opinion about HRW.
Sounds to me like a well intentioned, but agenda driven, media company.

That the audience so defined is almost certainly an empty subset of the board's membership, makes the offence of offering no explanatory comment nor opinion more egregious, not less.

I'm guessing that some members of this board have more confident opinions than I have. Including opinions that are indistinguishable from "defenders of HRW".

If LP's posting style doesn't work for you, why are you bothering with this thread at all?
Tom

To add my weight to those who are saying it has no place on this board at all, as the OP is in direct contravention of the rules.

 

[TomC]

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

I understood it. Why can't you?
I don't have a firm opinion about HRW.
Sounds to me like a well intentioned, but agenda driven, media company.

That the audience so defined is almost certainly an empty subset of the board's membership, makes the offence of offering no explanatory comment nor opinion more egregious, not less.

I'm guessing that some members of this board have more confident opinions than I have. Including opinions that are indistinguishable from "defenders of HRW".

If LP's posting style doesn't work for you, why are you bothering with this thread at all?
Tom

To add my weight to those who are saying it has no place on this board at all, as the OP is in direct contravention of the rules.

If LP edited his post to include, "Why are there HRW supporters?", then you'd respond with something more substantive than "Rules!"?
Tom

 

[bilby]

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

I understood it. Why can't you?
I don't have a firm opinion about HRW.
Sounds to me like a well intentioned, but agenda driven, media company.

That the audience so defined is almost certainly an empty subset of the board's membership, makes the offence of offering no explanatory comment nor opinion more egregious, not less.

I'm guessing that some members of this board have more confident opinions than I have. Including opinions that are indistinguishable from "defenders of HRW".

If LP's posting style doesn't work for you, why are you bothering with this thread at all?
Tom

To add my weight to those who are saying it has no place on this board at all, as the OP is in direct contravention of the rules.

If LP edited his post to include, "Why are there HRW supporters?", then you'd respond with something more substantive than "Rules!"?
Tom

If LP edited his post to include a summary or paraphrase of the relevant point(s) from his link, in his own words, as part of an OP that contained an argument or refutation, or at least a description with personal commentary, then I might have something to respond to.

Unfortunately, he hasn't, so I don't; The only thing here to discuss is the meta-discussion of whether or not the OP should be permitted at all.

And that discussion has itself necessarily run its course, as discussion of moderation is also against the rules.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not an explanatory comment; It's an address line - it simply defines the audience for the thread.

I understood it. Why can't you?
I don't have a firm opinion about HRW.
Sounds to me like a well intentioned, but agenda driven, media company.

. It is not a media company. It is a non-profit organisation that monitors, reports on, and lobbies for rights.

Which suggests you didn’t understand it.

[

How does HRW do anything?

With effort and resources.

Nothing personal, but you sound like a "defender of HRW".
I'm extremely cynical, myself.
Tom

Cynicism is not the same ad ignorance.

The OP is report of a disgruntled ex employee is reporting an alleged anti-Semitic bias in an organization that criticizes Israel’s policies. There is no evidence that any criticisms are based on inaccurate information or lies.

This is news because…. ?

 

[Elixir]

This is news because…. ?

I think you already identified the reason it’s (put forth as) news.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

From the policy thread:

“It is expected if you post a video or a link that readers will not need to leave this site to know what you are contributing AND HOW YOU THINK IT ADDS TO THE DISCUSSION.”

This thread title and a link don’t come anywhere close to meeting the requirements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see only one poster who actually got the point rather than tried attack me over it.

 

[laughing dog]

I see only one poster who actually got the point rather than tried attack me over it.

Try opening your eyes.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I see only one poster who actually got the point rather than tried attack me over it.

As a staff member and super moderator you should know better. Also, you never answered my question about the newspaper.

 

[Swammerdami]

If you don't recognize the OP title as an explanatory comment I'm not sure what to tell you.
Tom

Not to be OVERLY pedantic, BUT ...
paragraphs or essays should stand alone, WITHOUT need to review a title, figure captions, etc.
Isn't this still taught in secondary school?

 

[Swammerdami]

I neither know nor care what the opinion of HRW is on the atrocities which Israel regularly commits and is committing now. But guessing the intent of OP I will say this:

About 99% of the world -- while happy to repeat "Shame on Hamas. Shame. Shame!" -- is aware that Israel's behavior also falls far short of righteousness. Yet Americans are denounced or censured for suggesting that Israel's oppression of Palestinians is less than admirable.

It is disgusting the way millions of Americans are eager to lick the scrotum of Donald Trump. Yet many of those just as disgusted about that as I am are eager to lick Netanyahu's scrotum.

Hope this helps.