Bill Van Esveld works for Human Rights Watch. He is also one of the contacts in the Middle East for the Olive Tree Initiative. Here is a sampling of his writings on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-van-esveld/yes-war-does-have-rules_b_737625.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-van-esveld/the-blockade-of-gaza-two_b_224340.html
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=122689#axzz19Gnvmkf0
The below article (Jerusalem Post) features an interview between the writer and Esveld.
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?ID=190514&R=R1
"Bill Van Esveld, a Human Rights Watch researcher who has written reports about violations in Gaza by both Israel and Hamas, said that a few weeks after Operation Cast Lead, he was examining the destruction in Khuzaa, a village about a half-kilometer from the border, when residents warned him not to stray too far.
“The IDF had sheared off the edge of the town, knocking down a row of houses. The residents told me, ‘Don’t go over there; stay on this side of the rubble or you’ll get shot.’ That’s when it came home to me,” he said.
Since then, in various parts of Gaza, some civilians were “shot in broad daylight, when the only thing ‘unusual’ about them was that they were young men,” Van Esveld continued.
Noting that many of them were picking up scrap metal, a valuable commodity, as the IDF bans metal imports because they’re used to build tunnels and weapons, he said it’s easy to mistake a man holding metal bars for a man holding a gun.
“You can’t just take a shot at anyone who picks up a big tube – that’s what they do for their livelihood,” he said. “Some of them [who look from a distance like they might be armed] could be scavengers, and some of them could be shooters.”
And what about the Human Rights Watch? They reportedly document human rights abuses by both sides of the conflict. Are they fair and impartial?
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/israel-and-occupied-territories
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/09/26/israel-extend-settlement-freeze
http://cifwatch.com/2010/07/09/hrws-subjectivity-or-mena-behaving-badly/
In the below Wikipedia entry, HRW has been accused of having an anti-Israel bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch
I am not taking issue with any of Esveld's claims. Far be it from me to argue the word of one who is on the scene, which I am not. My question is whether Esveld and HRW favor one side or the other. Why is that important? Only because Esveld is another on a list of individuals who are meeting with OTI students on their trips to the Middle East. Is there really a balanced view of the conflict being presented to the students? That is the question at the center of the debate surrounding the Olive Tree Initiative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If your intent is to show that there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Israel, you have succeeded, and I thank you for allowing the facts to speak for themselves.
My point was not to argue the points. My point goes to the question of whether OTI students are getting a balanced view.
Well, what you wrote on this post certainly hasn't raised that question... I continue to have a sense that you WANT to make that a question, whether it is raised by the facts or not.
Make sure to also read about the Reut Institute and Natal Trauma Center, two Israeli NGOs we spent hours with each:
http://reut-institute.org/
http://www.natal.org.il/english/
I always look at where the money for the funding of an NGO or media organization comes from. In the case of the Huffington Post and Human Rights Watch, George Soros has donated a great deal of money. In fact, Soros secretly donated 100 million dollars to the HRW. We know where Soros stands and that should provide plenty of evidence to where Bill Van Esveld stands.
Squid
If we examine all the individuals and orgaqnizations involved, then perhaps we can get a sense of the balance. Yes, there are pro-Israeli points of contact. I don't dispute that. My question is about balance. Do the pro-palestiniians want a peaceful soilution that results in a secure Israeli state-or the eventual dissolution of Israel? If it's the latter, then what purpose is served for pro-Israel students to get their perspective? If its the former, then there is room for discussion.
If we characterize individuals and then ascribe their alleged character to entire organizations in which they are involved, perhaps we can reduce the whole world to hermitude. That way, nobody would have to worry about what might lurk in the mind of anyone they happened to be in a common endeavor with, because there would be no common endeavors.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain Matan. He's a humbug.
Post a Comment