This from The Economist, at the time the bloggers campaign was leaked

But even his critics admit that he is not an anti-Semite. And though his reports are generally critical of Israel, his memorabilia hobby doesn't seem to inform his work in any way (though no one but Mr Garlasco can know for sure).
The blogger who broke the story admits as much, arguing that Human Rights Watch "couldn't notice anything wrong with the way [Mr Garlasco] approached the conflict because, well, that's how they all approach the conflict." Perhaps they all collect Nazi memorabilia too, or perhaps it doesn't matter. Therein lies the problem. The controversy, made relevant by Mr Garlasco's critical reports on Israel, seems to have little bearing on the substance of those reports. If we weren't dealing with the touchy subjects of Israel and the second world war, it would almost be like condemning someone for having a foot fetish.
Jim Carroll