Defending himself against the inference (a perfectly reasonable one to draw from yesterday’s post) that he believes that Human Rights Watch officials “shouldn’t talk to Arab audiences about Israel,” Jeffrey Goldberg writes:

No! Of course not. What I’m suggesting is that they shouldn’t fund-raise in Arab countries, especially un-free Arab countries — by bragging about their opposition to Israel, and by invoking the greatest bogeyman of all, the Jewish lobby. It’s just so tacky it’s hard to believe Ken Roth, the group’s director, would ever endorse this practice.

I think it’s relevant to note here that Ken Roth never endorsed this practice. Nor is there any evidence that any HRW representative ever engaged in it. This is all Goldberg’s invention.

I spoke to Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division, and asked her to respond to Goldberg’s characterization of HRW’s work and fundraising practices. Whitson acknowledged that “obviously our work in Israel is of interest in the Middle East,” but that “the common perception in the region is that, as an American organization, we’re too soft on Israel”:

In talking about our work, we point out that we are as critical of Israel as we are of every other country in the Middle East. That really comes as a surprise to people in the Middle East when they hear that, because they have the opposite perception.

As to Goldberg’s charge that HRW was raising money by “invoking the greatest bogeyman of all, the Jewish lobby,” Whitson laughed, saying “there’s no way to talk about our work on Israel without [noting] attacks against Human Rights Watch from right-wing pro-Israel groups.” Whitson said that such criticism was brought up to counter the common perception that HRW is “too soft on Israel,” and not as some sort of insidious anti-Semitic fund-raising ploy.

One shouldn’t even have to point this out, but discussing HRW’s work on Israel (wherever and with whomever, even with, yes, Arabs) is obviously not the same as “bragging about HRW’s opposition to Israel.” Discussing the very real and intense hostility that right-wing pro-Israel groups show toward HRW’s reporting — hostility to which Jeffrey Goldberg has, through sloppy and tendentious journalism, now added some weight — is obviously not the same as invoking “the Jewish lobby.” The real question here is what Goldberg’s interest is in conflating these things.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released a video today that they claim documents the wildlife and environmental damage that undocumented immigrants and their “coyote smugglers” are inflicting on the Coronado National Forest in Arizona. The narrator, Janice Kephart, doesn’t have any scientific credentials and is no environmentalist. But that didn’t stop her from going green to promote CIS’ anti-immigrant agenda. Watch it:

Kephart doesn’t cite a single shred of evidence, but rather uses isolated “hidden camera” footage from “Borderinvasionpics.com” of wildlife pit against clips of suspected border-crossings to make the case that undocumented immigrants “have destroyed fragile Arizona ecosystems.” The same clips of “human coyotes and their clients” are played over and over to give Kephart more credence than she actually deserves. Kephart swears that the photos of strewn garbage and undergarments in trees once belonged to “illegal aliens,” not negligent backpackers or mischievous hikers. Kephart worries about what will happen to a bear or a mountain lion if it crosses the paths of humans:

“The animals frequently cross alien foot paths like this wild pig seen roaming on a trail also frequented by groups of men and women…A beautiful and hungry mature bear sniffs for food on a well-worn illegal path. This bear might be unwillingly in jeopardy…What if the bear encounters the human coyotes or a cartel next time?“

Chances are that a giant hungry bear or mountain lion has a lot less to worry about than the individuals who bump into them.

CIS and Kephart have put out this video to raise “questions about environmentalists’ focus on stopping a border fence.” Biologists have warned that the 700-mile border wall currently under construction will threaten wildlife species. In 2008, Defenders of Wildlife sued the Bush administration for waiving three dozen federal environmental laws to start building the wall. The National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club have all come out strongly against its construction. There’s isn’t documentation of any of these groups ever discussing the environmental impacts of immigrants that Kephart puts forth. In fact, a video released by the Sierra Club states “the proposed border wall will not stop human migration, but instead does unnecessary and serious harm to precious natural areas.” Watch it:

Soon after taking office, President Obama began following through on his promise to make resolving the Israeli-Arab dispute a priority for his administration. A central element of his approach was bringing U.S. policy back into balance in regard to previous Israeli and Palestinian commitments, which in Israel’s case meant a halt on construction of settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem.

Earlier this week, ThinkProgress sat down with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) to discuss, among other foreign policy issues, President Obama’s policy toward creating a lasting and secure peace in the Middle East.

Smith said that the president “is starting to push along on both sides what needs to be done,” to get to a two-state solution, and that “Congress by and large is very supportive of that.”

Affirming his strong support for Israel, and recognizing “the difficult balance they have had to strike between trying to reach some sort of peaceful settlement while at the same time protecting their citizens,” Smith also said that Israel has “to take further steps. And the settlements are part of it”:

But also in the West Bank you know you have the check points, you have the fact that Palestinians have a hard time just going through the daily life that most of us take for granted, and that does not put them in a particularly positive frame of mind towards working a peace agreement — I’m talking about the moderate Palestinians who really do simply want to find some sort of resolution. So I think recognizing that Israel needs to do more in the West Bank to help the Palestinians develop a real state so that the people will support it has got to be part of the process. Settlements are part of that issue, checkpoints are part of the issue, the economy in Palestine is part of that issue.

Watch it:

CAP Senior Fellow Brian Katulis recently returned from a trip to the region, during which he conducted a number of interviews with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and analysts. A report he co-authored with Marc Lynch and Robert Adler — “Window of Opportunity for a Two-State Solution” — can be read here.

Full transcript below. Read more