As noted by the committee appointed by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia to review alleged wrongdoing by NATO forces during the 1999 Kosovo campaign, "Much of the material submitted to the office of the prosecutor consisted of reports that civilians had been killed, often inviting the conclusion to be drawn that crimes had therefore been committed". Similarly, HRW's and Amnesty's reports relating to Gaza simply highlighted a few highly emotive incidents from which these organisations drew overly broad and unfounded conclusions regarding Israel's compliance with international law. Moreover, both organisations minimised or even concealed that, during their missions to Gaza, they were continually shadowed by Hamas officials who vetted and debriefed witnesses prior to and following interviews. It should also be stressed that the methodological deficiencies in these publications are not unique to Israel. A 2006 study by the University of London, entitled The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia, found that:
Both organisations have substantive problems in their handling of quantitative information. Problems include the failure to specify sources, unclear definitions, an erratic reporting template and a distorted portrayal of conflict dynamics.
Human Rights Watch's concentration on the Arab-Israeli conflict reflects the political ideology of its officials, as well as the powerful influence of the media in setting NGO agendas. According to a study by James Ron and Howard Ramos, "Watchdogs respond to media demand, and the more journalists ask about a country such as Israel, the more Human Rights Watch... will respond". Similarly, a member of HRW's board has commented: "We seek the limelight — that's part of what we do. And so, Israel is sort of like low-hanging fruit."
In 2009, HRW issued nearly 100 publications on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the vast majority on Gaza, eclipsing virtually every other issue in the Middle East. HRW has issued only two reports on Iran since January 2009, compared to seven reports on the Gaza war alone. Its lone report on the Iranian post-election crisis is only 19 pages, compared to a total of 351 pages condemning Israel for the war.
HRW's charges relating to white phosphorus, drones, and white flag deaths drove a variety of NGO and media campaigns during the Gaza war and fed directly into the Goldstone report, following the model of the massacre claims about Jenin in 2002 and Qana in the 2006 Lebanon war. These reports were mostly premised on speculation or false claims, such as allegations that there was evidence that no Palestinian fighters were present in the immediate area of the attacks at the time, as well as charges that go beyond HRW's research capacity.
In its report, Rain of Fire, HRW charged Israel with illegal use of white phosphorus munitions. This allegation depended upon the military expertise of Marc Garlasco, HRW's former senior military analyst who resigned in February in the wake of scandal. His technical assertions were refuted by many military experts including in evidence provided to the Goldstone mission, even though that evidence was selectively reviewed by the mission in its report, and was supplemented with unverifiable and often inconsistent Palestinian testimony. HRW did not have knowledge of the military conditions involved and based claims of malevolent intent and war crimes on speculations regarding alternatives that may or may not have been available and equally effective.
Another report accused Israel of war crimes resulting from the alleged use of Spike missiles fired from drones. This report, too, was fundamentally flawed. A number of experts unconnected with HRW also immediately noted the major technical errors in the claims. Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, remarked that the launch of a missile from drones, two of which were alleged to occur at night, would likely elude the naked eye. He added: “Human Rights Watch makes a lot of claims and assumptions about weapons and drones, all of which is still fairly speculative.” Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, similarly questioned Garlasco’s claims that witnesses heard drones prior to the alleged attacks. Kemp noted that the five-mile range of a Spike missile was enough to put it well out of earshot.
The single HRW report on Palestinian violations of Israeli human rights, entitled Rockets from Gaza, was not published until 6 August 2009, long after media attention had subsided. The report covered no new ground and largely repeated an April 2009 publication of the International Crisis Group. Moreover, the content of the report equated Israel with Hamas, failed to condemn Hamas for the use of human shields, and blamed Israel for Hamas rocket fire from populated areas. Rockets from Gaza also ignored weapons smuggling into Gaza, as well as the role of Iran and Syria in supplying those weapons. In contrast to the condemnations HRW directed at Israel, its report on Hamas included no implications and appeared to be merely an attempt to create artificial balance.
Rockets from Gaza was followed one week later by White Flag Deaths, alleging that Israel deliberately killed civilians waving white flags. This report relied on conflicting Palestinian claims and ignored the major discrepancies in Arabic-language and international media regarding these charges. In one case, over 16 different versions appeared in the media. At a press conference held in Jerusalem, HRW admitted it was aware of these many versions, yet this information was missing in its report. Inconsistencies include whether Hamas fighters were present at the time of the incidents, the specific details of how the incidents transpired and the number, identity and affiliation of casualties.
HRW's reporting on Gaza was coupled with several notable scandals. In May 2009, HRW officials appeared at a fund-raising dinner in Saudi Arabia including at least one member of the governing Shura Council. At the dinner, HRW noted its need to combat "pro-Israel pressure groups" as the reason for seeking Saudi funding.
In September 2009, Marc Garlasco, HRW's "senior military analyst" responsible for authoring many of HRW's Israel reports since 2004, was revealed to be an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia, contributing more than 8,000 posts to Nazi memorabilia websites and authoring a 430-page collecting guide to Nazi-era war medals. Finally, in October, HRW's founder Robert Bernstein, wrote a devastating op-ed in the New York Times charging that HRW "has lost critical perspective" and "has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state." Recent exposés on HRW in The Sunday Times of London and the New Republic support these claims.
As with HRW, Gaza was the primary focus of Amnesty International's work in 2009. Israel is portrayed as the second worst human rights violator in the Middle East after Iran. Palestinian, Syrian, Libyan, Egyptian, and Saudi human rights violations received far less attention. In addition, Amnesty International issued more in-depth reports, which have the greatest impact, on Israel than on any other country.
In July 2009, Amnesty International published a report entitled Operation 'Cast Lead': 22 Days of Death and Destruction, charging Israel with "war crimes". The 127 page report ignored considerable evidence available to anyone with access to YouTube of Hamas operating deliberately within civilian areas to turn the population of Gaza into a mass human shield. It minimised Palestinian violations of international law, and promoted boycotts and lawfare against Israel. The only mention of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit was in a footnote, underlining Amnesty International's double standards in the application of human rights norms. A subsequent report published on the first anniversary of the Gaza war accused Israel of "collective punishment under international law", minimising the role of Egypt and Hamas.
The report also repeated a claim, which originated in its July 2009 report, that Israel "wantonly and deliberately" destroyed the al-Bader flour mill in Gaza. This incident was not contemporaneously reported by the Palestinian NGOs in Gaza, nor in the Arabic media. Photographs and a summary of events released by the UN and the IDF refute Amnesty International's and the Goldstone mission's version of events and clearly show that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery during a firefight with Hamas combatants and not by an F-16 strike as Amnesty International and Goldstone claimed.