Israel: Human Rights Watch backslides on free speech?

Human Rights Watch’s suspension of military analyst Marc Garlasco under Israeli pressure raises questions about its own commitment to free expression, says Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam


As Human Rights Watch’s senior military analyst, Marc Garlasco is responsible for investigating munitions that kill and maim civilians in military conflicts. He investigated the Israel Defense Force’s human rights record in Lebanon and Gaza. His HRW report on the Lebanon war urged Israel to stop using weapons such as cluster bombs.

Garlasco is a self-defined “military nerd” who served as an analyst with the Pentagon for eight years. Right-wing pro-Israel blogs, together with the Israeli foreign ministry, have publicised the fact that he collects World War II memorabilia, specializing in Nazi-era anti-aircraft unit regalia. He’s written two books for collectors in the field.

Garlasco claims that he has never hidden his hobby from anyone. HRW’s legal office is responsible for vetting any book or article written by a staff member. Garlasco’s latest book (freely available on Amazon) was published in January. Given this, the group cannot credibly argue it did not know about Garlasco’s personal hobby.

Pro-Israel advocates claim that Garlasco is a Nazi sympathizer, and that his hobby disqualifies him from being a neutral observer in his professional work. Even some HRW supporters are extremely uncomfortable in defending his personal enthusiasms. I for one, have distant family members who were murdered by the Nazis. As such, hobbies like this repel me.

Garlasco responds that he has never said or written anything anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Nazism, nor have his attackers discovered any such expressions. In fact, in the introduction to his recent book he decries the Nazis and the suffering that they inflicted on the world.

When the news first broke, HRW vigorously defended Garlasco. But once the story hit the New York Times, the group ‘”shifted course” (as the Times itself noted). HRW suspended Garlasco from his job pending further investigation.

As an organisation devoted to human rights, HRW walks a very thin line. On the one hand, it must honour Garlasco’s right to free expression (which includes pursuing a personal hobby. Though it may be repugnant to some, it is neither criminal nor immoral.). On the other hand HRW must also protect its integrity and reputation among the nations it investigates.

But the truth of the matter is that the attack on Garlasco is entirely political in nature. There is no moral component involved since even his detractors would be hard-pressed to find any ethical breach in his behaviour. If HRW fires Garlasco, then it will be violating its own commitment to human rights (among its employees). If it does not, it will face more of the same opprobrium from its detractors.

Not an easy set of choices, but it seems there is only one right one. One wonders whether HRW will have the courage to stick up for human rights at home as well as abroad.

Richard Silverstein writes Tikun Olam, a liberal Jewish blog dedicated to Israeli-Palestinian peace. He is on the advisory board of Tikkun Magazine, and has written for Ha’aretz and Tikkun Magazine

« Russia: getting away with murder • Ai Weiwei undergoes brain surgery after beating »

1. David T

   September 17, 2009 at 10:48

   Let us say that it turned out that Peter Tatchell collected these ashtrays:

   http://www.headnbodyshop.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/WE061.jpg

   If that came to light, it might undermine his ability to criticize Beeny Man’s homophobia.

2. David T

   September 17, 2009 at 11:42

   Or, to give another example..

   Imagine a campaigner who wants to reduce the age of consent to 13. He explains that this important legislative reform is required to protect children who may engage in sexual activity, but who cannot presently seek medical advice for fear of being prosecuted. He emphasises that he is against paedophilia, and stresses that the criminalisation of sexual conduct by and with children under the age of 13 actually makes it less likely for paedophiles to be identified and treated.

   Then it turns out that the activist posts under the name “LewisCarroll69″ on forums where participants trade photographs of naked Victorian children.

   The activist explains that it is OUTRAGEOUS that anybody suggest that he is a paedophile, that the “69″ refers merely to the year in which he was born, and that Lewis Carroll was a great children’s writer. He collects photographs of naked Victorian children, true, but that these photographs have both artistic and historical merit.

   How long does he stay in his job?

3. Kimo AL Quds

   September 17, 2009 at 14:57

   The issue is whether ‘free speech’ includes deliberate lying and falsification. If so then big G just has his own morality to be concerned with and it seems he doesnt care wehether he lies or not. However for a group like HRW, lying and falsification of the documents or slanting them in a particular way as opposed to presenting an unbiased factual document, ruins their credibiltiy and just makes them a foil for the terrorists. The real provblem is people cant grasp the concept of stateless groups whose only goal is to destroy a very decent nation state. If terrorists are not signatories to any international documents governing behaviors, then when confronting them, one legally does not have to comply with documents that have been signed and agreed upon that limit conduct in armed conflict. Besides who but liberals believe there are rules in fighting a war. The only rule is to win. Otherwise it is a waste. These libturds have forgotten that. Arabs continue to attachk Israel but when Isrqael defends itself as it did in Dec, asswipes like this condem Israel for trying to keep its people from harm. It is sad that these people are able to get into powerful positions where they may lie and falsifi and attempt to prevent a nation from defending itself against ongoing murder and mayhem from these Arab terrorists

4. Matthew

   September 18, 2009 at 06:17

   Male Fantasies by Theweleit:

   “a study of fascist consciousness and the bodily experience of these former soldiers, was well received. Theweleit used Wilhelm Reich, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, and other theorists, and discussed his findings with his wife (who had clinical experience). He formulated his insights in a voluntarily nonacademic personal style.”

   It is probably ludicrous to suggest that Garlasco is a suitable employee for a Human Rights organization as any examination of Theweleit’s monumental work might suggest. It is, however, amusing to read that Silverstein thinks otherwise.

5. Karl Pfeifer

   September 19, 2009 at 09:28

   Well HRW is taking money from certain sources in Saudi-Arabia.
   How independent are they?

5 Responses to “Israel: Human Rights Watch backslides on free speech?”