[leereeves]

> the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with the "pro-Israel pressure groups."

What's wrong with that? Any honest observer will have battles with groups who want to spin the truth.

I'd say one of the biggest problems in the US political system right now is that we don't have enough organizations willing to battle against our own partisan pressure groups (without siding with any of them).

Perhaps that's what's troubling: so many of our organizations have taken sides that it's difficult to understand an organization that hasn't.

As for raising money in Saudi Arabia: they were raising money from private supporters there, not the Saudi government. Do you think no one in SA supports human rights?

Or, if the suggestion is that HRW is siding with the Saudis, take a look at:

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia

[jonbodner]

Oh, you sweet summer child.

Who do you think "private supporters" are in Saudi Arabia?

And no, I don't think anyone with anything resembling power or wealth in Saudi Arabia supports human rights.

HRW execs admit via email to the editor in chief of a nationally respected magazine that they raise money by bragging how tough they are on Israel. And then they are tough on Israel, and you think it's a principled stance. Maybe they just have profitable principles, I dunno.

[leereeves]

HRW should be "tough" on any nation that violates people's human rights. That's their mission.

And it seems like they are. They're tough on Saudi Arabia too.

[jonbodner]

Sure. But it’s hard to ignore that they are far harsher on Israel than any other country.

But don’t take it from me. Take that from a senior editor who left HRW after 13 years: https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-se...

[leereeves]

Her objections include: "HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks...included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’"

And "political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence."

It sounds like she wanted their coverage to be more one-sided. Explaining "the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" is perfectly valid.