Dispute over Human Rights Watch citation

This edit is the latest in a minor fracas over this cite, which fracas began here when Wehwalt removed the cite from the lede, describing HRW as a "pressure group." Actually, in this controversial topic, probably the majority of sources could be described as "pressure groups," but that doesn't make them reliable when properly cited. I restored the cite in a less prominent position here, at which point Wehwalt added a rebuttal sentence, with edit summary "added explanation of why the IDF knocked down these structures, consolidated into the Background section." I found this problematic, because the article doesn't actually say what Wehwalt added; it says that the group analyzed the claims by the IDF, and found them to be largely bogus. So, to leave Wehwalt's edit in place creates a false impression of what the HRW reports. I modified the section according, which edit was then reverted by Wehwalt. I'm going to leave it alone for a day or so to give Wehwalt the opportunity to clean it up. Incidentally, in Wehwalt's latest edit summary, he says that "This is the article on Corrie, not on home demolitions. We are to give the reader a modicum of info on this, not draw conclusions." First of all, it seems to me that Corrie is only notable because of home demolitions. Secondly, giving the reader "a modicum of info" would be best served by an accurate summary of the HRW cite, whereas altering it for POV reasons would be an example of "drawing conclusions."