We've been running this series about how the people employed by Human Rights Watch to watch Israel tend to be, shall we say, flawed and perhaps not well suited to their job. There was Sarah Lee Whtison, veteran pro-Palestinian agitator who went to Saudi Arabia to raise funds from Saudi oil magnates for bashing Israel. There's her deputy Joe Stork who's on record for opining that murdering Israeli athletes at the Olympics is reasonable if you're oppressed by Israelis.
But these revelations aren't really that surprising if you think about them. It takes a specific type of warped mind to see Israel the way these folks routinely misreport it. The surprise in the stories is the brazenness. If you wish to bash Israel, hire an unknown language instructor from some town in Argentina, say, not prominent pro-Palestinian activists; at least you'll have a wee bit more credibility for a time. Perhaps. Maybe. Well, hopefully.
The newest story, however, is just plain weird. It turns out HRW employs one Marc Garlasco as a "senior military analyst", whatever that might be, and predictably he writes often about all the bad things Israel routinely does. Garlasco, however, is also a Nazi paraphernalia fetishist. Really. Noah Pollack writes at Contentions, but Omri Ceren did the research, and clarified here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Graffiti spray-painted on a wall during a war is a pressing human-rights issue in the Middle East? Is vandalism even a human-rights issue? Only if you’re an Israel-obsessive.
It's absolutely stunning when you think about it. These people are being paid to sit, day after day, inventing new, innovative ways that Israel can violate "international law". This is their sole preoccupation... well, and fundraising.
Marc Garlasco's hobby is bizarre, as is his choice of username on the Wehrmacht Awards website. He calls himself Flak88, after the anti-aircraft cannon his grandfather used. But the number 88 is notoriously significant to neo-Nazis. I can't believe that Mr Galasco wasn't aware of this. Perhaps it is some form of transgressive humor but it is really, really inappropriate.
Post a Comment