Ken Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has left no doubt over the past 48 hours about his sympathy for an organization which not only terrorizes Israeli civilians, but terrorizes the Palestinians of Gaza as well.
Here, laughably, he concedes that UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer is correct in characterizing Ken’s twitter account as the “Hamas has rights” account.
The above was in response to this:
Next, not nearly as humorously, and not for the first time, he defends Hamas’s terror tunnels, speculating that they are justified if they were intended to be used to kidnap soldiers.
And here, he continues to repeat the now-disproven Hamas mantra that the majority of casualties in Gaza were civilians.
Even this terror apologist, however, can’t deny that Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians constitute war crimes.
He doesn’t seem terribly upset about it, though.
Update:
Looks like Ken read my post. A few hours after I wrote the above, he tweeted:
He is the one that doesn’t get it. Ken’s problem is, first, his steadfast refusal to believe that Hamas commits war crimes, exemplified by his speculation over Hamas’s planned use of the terror tunnels without any evidence whatsoever to support this theory, and despite a foiled attempt to use the tunnels to enter a kibbutz. (He ignores, as well, the fact that such an incursion into Israeli territory is, even if not a war crime, still an act of war that justifies a response.) Second, Ken refuses to believe that Israel has not committed a war crime by intentionally targeting civilians, again, despite evidence to the contrary, as when he speculated that Israel intentionally targeted non-combatant men in their twenties — something I’m not sure is even possible.
This approach of ignoring any evidence that doesn’t support his pre-conceptions is the very definition of bias. And we see it again, here, when he says, basically, that despite the evidence, there is no evidence, that Israel’s actions were justified:
