Read on Twitter
I saw people here attributing high credibility to the HRW apartheid report mainly because it's very long (217p) and has 865 footnotes. Someone even said it's "impossible to refute"!
So I made a quick analysis of those footnotes. Here's what I found out.
>>
So I made a quick analysis of those footnotes. Here's what I found out.
>>
The report's #1 external source of info by far is Btselem, with 87 references. Anyone still considering it a credible source on Israel is welcome to explore my extensive fact-based debunking of their recent "Israel apartheid" paper and reconsider. Next.
/2 https://twitter.com/InqNative/status/1373716325399465985?s=19
/2 https://twitter.com/InqNative/status/1373716325399465985?s=19
Second in the NGO category (33 references) is Peace Now. Anyone still considering it a credible source should read this @CAMERAorg piece on how it unabashedly manipulated settlement construction stats to produce fake headlines. /3 https://twitter.com/CAMERAorg/status/1384516897429987332?s=19
Closely behind Btselem with 69 references are interviews conducted by HRW. But guess what? 66 of them are with Palestinians and only 3 with Israelis (including a anti-settlement activist). Only 1 Israeli official was interviewed for a +200p report on Israeli policies. Odd, no?
/3
/3
Now check out the references to media sources:
*Haaretz - 80*
ToI - 16
NYT - 11
AJ- 6
J Post - 6
WP - 2
For those unaware, @haaretzcom is very often caught getting the facts wrong, strangely always in the same direction. Again, examples by @CAMERAorg.
https://www.camera.org/article/outlet/haaretz
/4
*Haaretz - 80*
ToI - 16
NYT - 11
AJ- 6
J Post - 6
WP - 2
For those unaware, @haaretzcom is very often caught getting the facts wrong, strangely always in the same direction. Again, examples by @CAMERAorg.
https://www.camera.org/article/outlet/haaretz
/4
A few individual writers are cited, but there's only one name that keeps repeating in the footnotes (14 refs): Jonathan Cook. One of the most fervent far-left anti-Israel author you can find. He thinks the Guardian is too pro-Israel ffs! Making him your top choice says a lot.
/5
/5
So the main sources are: NGOs that lie and manipulate facts, interviews providing only one side of the story, a paper which has long prioritized its political agenda over accuracy, and a fringe radical activist. Truly the recipe for an "irrefutable" report! But there's 1 more./6
Since HRW has always relied on this mix of dubious and politically biased sources for its reporting on Israel, the best source for it to cite is....itself! And indeed, at 1st place with 95 references in the footnotes of HRW's report is: HRW 
END.
END.
