96
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + +
Talk:Human Rights Watch (view source)
Revision as of 13:11, August 18, 2007
, 13:11, August 18, 2007no edit summary
Well, Ed, it could mean nothing, or it could point to the American Jewish community's long history of commitment to human rights, progressive politics, and democracy - dating back from before their involvement with the struggle of economically and racially marginalised African Americans during the Civil Rights era, to the longstanding Jewish commitment to persecuted minorities arising from the Jewish experience of the pogroms and the Holocaust. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 23:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, Ed, it could mean nothing, or it could point to the American Jewish community's long history of commitment to human rights, progressive politics, and democracy - dating back from before their involvement with the struggle of economically and racially marginalised African Americans during the Civil Rights era, to the longstanding Jewish commitment to persecuted minorities arising from the Jewish experience of the pogroms and the Holocaust. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 23:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
==US or not US==
I've removed the US for now, stating that an organisation is biased against an entire nation is a very serious accusation, which must be supported by a citation (even if it is true it must be supported because of its nature). However, after doing a bit of research it seems a lot of opinion is directed the other way, that HRW is biased in favour of the US, [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:EkHbfKMuohUJ:www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm%3FItemID%3D12200+%22human+rights+watch%22+bias+%22united+states%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7 this] is just one example. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 09:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT)