`  <- 149.166.35.137 asked me for my opinion. So, here it is for what it's worth. Keep it simple and focused on UN Watch. For me, the key bits are the what and why, something like below.  *the what (=neutral context) -> UN Watch opposed the United States government awarding Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a Presidential Medal of Freedom for her ``attention to international issues``.  *the why (=UN Watch POV) -> UN Watch opposed the award because of her position as head of the World Conference against Racism 2001(``Durban 1``) stating that she had failed to confront purveyors of anti-Israel rhetoric and that she ``may not had been the chief culprit of the Durban debacle, but she would always be its preeminent symbol.``   I think we then need to balance the UN Watch POV somehow. Not sure how best to do that and we shouldn't drown out the UN Watch POV. The Gibbs statement is pretty general so I don't think that helps much in this article although of course it's relevant for the Robinson article. The JPost's ``A group of Israeli human rights organizations supported Robinson in a letter to the American president.`` is interesting context/contrast but it's I guess it's highlighted by JPost because they're an Israeli media outlet. It doesn't mean we need to highlight it. UN Watch isn't an Israeli human rights organization. Having said that, I think the part currently in the lead is quite good for an overview The Jerusalem Post reported that UN Watch split with ``Israeli human rights groups and others`` and joined with other ``pro-Israel advocates`` in opposing... Perhaps that could go in the 'why? bit. Robinson's statement seems the most pertinent here in the sense that at least it's Robinson directly responding to her critics. I should just say that I don't have much interest in the content of this article other than ensuring it isn't turned into another partisan battleground in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The article has been subject to persistent sockpuppetry abuse by single purpose accounts and it's likely to attract non-neutral editors and remain a flashpoint for non-neutral editing. ' - ' `