For many years now, the human rights industry in the West has been consistantly anti-Israeli in outlook and output. Organisations such as B’tselem, which began by documenting routine breaches of Israeli law and human rights by the IDF and the Border Police in the territories taken in the 1967 war, have now shifted to a position placing undue blame on Israel for each incident and relying uncritically on the Palestinian Arabs. This practise extends to both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch where Palestinian Arab reports are taken at face value and not investigated.
These groups seem to have a great deal of naivete about the enemies of Israel, which one suspects to the result of an “anit-colonial struggle” mindset in the activists of those groups. In this mindset, the Palestinians are not just oppressed but are inherently virtuous, hence the reliance on propaganda. However, the Palestinian terrorist organisations have consistently taken advantage of this naivete to spread propaganda and false reporting around the world, while remaining certain in the knowledge that their own genocidal propaganda and declared intentions will remain unreported, falling as it does outside the anti-colonial paradigm.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, the human rights groups have adopted a political approach, choosing one side over another, rather than investigating all offences. Humanitarian law is now used as a tool with which to attack the West (in this I include Israel), the outcome sought being to undermine our moral sense and leave us open to attack from the enemies exploiting this stupidity.
Another part of this question leaves me slightly disturbed, which is how does one purposefully criticise a terrorist group? One cannot appeal to the good conscience of the leaders, since they are already politically committed to murder for a political aim, nor can one take them to court. Naturally, democratic countries are the ones most affected by the accusation under international or humanitarian law, so one wonders if a bias has crept in over the years from the simple measure of ease of access and the ability to gain results. One cannot travel to Gaza or southern Lebanon and lambast Hamas or Hezbollah to their faces without the risk of either being laughed at or simply shot and dumped over the border. It is easier and safer to attack the West and more rewarding in the number of middle class professionals who will be sympathetic to your words.
One suspects that at their hearts, the human rights groups despair of their ability to actually change the world outside of the West, armed terrorist groups and totalitarian regimes shrug off words because of their use of violence as political argument. At least the human rights groups might admit this if they were not blinded by a politicised mindset, sorting the world into groups of the virtuous and wicked, while believing in that misnomer “fighting for Peace”.
How can one fight for peace when the terrorist will kill you?