David Bernstein asks me to read the NGO Monitor report (pdf):

[H]ere’s the rub: NGO Monitor doesn’t claim to be an objective, neutral party on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Neither do I. But (a) that doesn’t mean that one can reasonably and blithely ignore facts presented by NGO Monitor (e.g., the radical anti-Israel activist backgrounds of various top HRW Middle East staff; that one of the “eyewitnesses” relied upon on the Goldstone report has given fifteen different and conflicting accounts of a particular incidents to different sources); and (b) Human Rights Watch does claim to be an objective source, yet its reporting is laughably one-side. So here’s my proposal to Andrew: read the report with an open mind. If its wrong, explain specifically why its wrong. And if its right, acknowledge that its right. Your support for Human Rights Watch should at least be informed, no? Better to live in blissful but ideologically comfortable, ignorance?

Since this thread started by my looking into HRW's actual record of reports and failing to find the unhinged anti-Semitism and desire to exterminate Israel that has been reported, I don't think "blissful ignorance" is an adequate description of my stance. The Dish glanced over the report and it reads more like an op-ed than a fact finding exercise, but we will give it further study. E-mail if you find anything of interest.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.