HRW's bias exposed

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
After being directed to HRW's site by gomer, I have done some research on it, from various source. This is but one, that exposes Kenneth Roth's continuous bias towards Israel and the continuous ignoring or foot dragging involved when it comes to the war crimes of the Hezbollah.

CAMERA and Human Rights Watch: An Exchange


On Sept. 7, CAMERA posted an article questioning the number of reported civilian casualties in Lebanon. Much of the media had uncritically accepted Lebanese casualty claims while discounting Israeli estimates that suggested a substantial number of the total dead were Hezbollah fighters (and consequently, that the number of civilian casualties was much lower than widely claimed.)
The article also mentioned Human Rights Watch, suggesting that the group's reports and Op-Eds misleadingly implied Hezbollah did not use the Lebanese towns of Srifa and Marwaheen—in which a number of civilians died—as staging areas for attacking Israel. In fact, residents have asserted they were used by Hezbollah as human shields.
Human Rights Watch contacted CAMERA to challenge several of the assertions in the article.
The Human Rights Watch letter and CAMERA's response follow:


Human Rights Watch letter, Sept. 13, 2006:
Dear CAMERA,
Your reference to Human Rights Watch in Steven Stotsky’s Sept. 7 article on your homepage, "Questioning the Number of Civilian Casualties in Lebanon" (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1195), is filled with inaccuracies which we trust you will correct:
• You suggest that HRW mistakenly reported that civilians were killed in Hula, yet we never mentioned Hula in our report.
• You say that HRW ignored the Hezbollah military presence in Marwaheen. In fact, we reported that military presence as the reason civilians were fleeing Marwaheen. Our complaint with respect to Israeli conduct is that Israeli bombers killed 21 civilian residents of Marwaheen after they had fled the village.
• You repeat without attribution criticisms of our reporting on Srifa made by Avi Bell in the Jerusalem Post based on a deceptive reading of various newspaper articles, yet you ignore the letter that we published in response demonstrating the groundlessness of his deceptive presentation. See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154526022655&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
• In Qana, you claim that Red Cross and hospital officials gave the revised and reduced death toll of 28. In fact, it was Human Rights Watch that issued the revised toll and convinced the authorities to accept our number. See http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13899.htm. In fact, the death toll today seems more accurately to be 27. At a later funeral, 4 of 29 graves were draped with the Hezbollah flag. But two of those, whose names we have, were fighters killed elsewhere. As for the other two, the flags without the "martyr" posters that usually accompany the burial of fighters suggest that they were from families that were members of Hezbollah but not fighters — a not uncommon practice. Obviously, it is illegal to attack someone for their political views rather than their military activity.
Thanks for your attention, and for your time. Please advise us of how you remedy the above.
best,
Brian Griffey
Communications Associate
Human Rights Watch


CAMERA response, Sept. 19, 2006:
Dear Mr. Griffey,
We have carefully reviewed your objections. Please find our response below, preceded by your original comments (in boldface).
• You wrote: "You suggest that HRW mistakenly reported that civilians were killed in Hula, yet we never mentioned Hula in our report."
Our piece, "Questioning the Number of Civilian Casualties in Lebanon," does not make any claims regarding HRW and Hula. HRW is cited in connection with the incidents in Srifa and Marwaheen, but not Hula. Thus no correction is necessary on this point.
We have, however, added the word "Lebanese" to the relevant passage—"Wide publicity was given to the Lebanese claim that 40 civilians..."—to make it even more clear we are not referring to HRW at that point.
• You wrote: "You say that HRW ignored the Hezbollah military presence in Marwaheen. In fact, we reported that military presence as the reason civilians were fleeing Marwaheen. Our complaint with respect to Israeli conduct is that Israeli bombers killed 21 civilian residents of Marwaheen after they had fled the village."
Our discussion of Marwaheen refers specifically to an Aug. 18 column in the Jerusalem Post by HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth. In that column, Mr. Roth does in fact completely ignore Hezbollah’s military presence in Marwaheen, including the presence documented by the New York Times. (Remember that, according to New York Times reporter Hassan Fattah, "residents [of Marwaheen] said Hezbollah was using them as human shields.") But while failing to mention Hezbollah’s use of Marwaheen as a base to attack Israel, Mr. Roth claims that "In none of those cases [investigated by HRW] was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack," including in what Mr. Roth describes as an Israeli bombing "in ... Marwaheen."
As a result of Mr. Roth’s omission and his description of Hezbollah not being "anywhere around" at certain times, and in the context of HRW’s allegations that Israel committed war crimes, his column in the Jerusalem Post gives the demonstrably false impression that Marwaheen was a purely civilian area, and that the IDF had no reason at all to act there. This is the point we raise in our report; and we stand by this point.
To make perfectly clear that our reference is to Mr. Roth’s Aug. 18 column, we have added the phrase "in his Jerusalem Post column" to the relevant passage: "... which Kenneth Roth clearly implied in his Jerusalem Post column was not being used by Hezbollah ..."
• You wrote: "You repeat without attribution criticisms of our reporting on Srifa made by Avi Bell in the Jerusalem Post based on a deceptive reading of various newspaper articles, yet you ignore the letter that we published in response demonstrating the groundlessness of his deceptive presentation."
It is presumptuous to assume that all criticism of your reports emanate from the same source. Our information did not come from Mr. Bell’s articles.
Regardless, while Ms. Whitson’s letter attempts to raise questions about Avi Bell’s assertions, it certainly does not disprove them. (Mr. Bell originally stated that "it beggars belief to imagine that none of the dead were Hizbullah fighters as HRW wrote. ... HRW's ‘investigation’ was nothing more than window dressing for predetermined anti-Israel conclusions and the HRW investigation was either professionally incompetent or a complete fabrication." He responds to Ms. Whitson’s letter here: http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1156807655.shtml)
Likewise, her letter fails to dispel the questions we raise about the HRW’s comments about Srifa. We note that "apparently HRW investigators did not speak with the same people as Hassan Fattah, a correspondent for the New York Times," who found large numbers of fighters killed in Srifa. Our general point is that, as with Roth’s discussion of Marwaheen, HRW’s report ignores the context of Hezbollah fighters using Srifa to attack Israel.
By giving the impression that Srifa is a purely civilian "target," HRW distorts readers’ understanding of the Israeli attacks on the town. In other words, there is an important distinction to be made between civilians inadvertently killed in a town used extensively by Hezbollah and civilians being "deliberately" attacked in towns not related to the fighting. Based on news reports from Srifa, Israel’s attacks there clearly belong in the former category; yet HRW wrongly suggests they belong in the latter category.
It is not only Mr. Fattah’s report that implicates Srifa as a base for Hezbollah attacks. In a Sept. 9 Associated Press story, for example, reporter Alfred de Montesquiou quotes a Srifa resident who admits to being a Hezbollah member, and says that: "My motorbike is ready and my gun is ready." The reporter adds: "residents say they're proud that Hezbollah rocket fire from the area attracted such an Israeli punishment." Also belying HRW’s depiction of Srifa as a purely civilian target is an Aug. 22 AP report by Kathy Gannon. That report relays comments from the diary of a Hezbollah fighter who was in Srifa throughout the fighting—including on the days discussed in HRW’s report.
• You wrote: "In Qana, you claim that Red Cross and hospital officials gave the revised and reduced death toll of 28. In fact, it was Human Rights Watch that issued the revised toll and convinced the authorities to accept our number. In fact, the death toll today seems more accurately to be 27. At a later funeral, 4 of 29 graves were draped with the Hezbollah flag. But two of those, whose names we have, were fighters killed elsewhere. As for the other two, the flags without the ‘martyr’ posters that usually accompany the burial of fighters suggest that they were from families that were members of Hezbollah but not fighters — a not uncommon practice. Obviously, it is illegal to attack someone for their political views rather than their military activity."
Our information on the Red Cross and the hospital providing the revised figure is based upon HRW’s own report. These are the exact words from your report on August 3: "It now appears that at least 22 people escaped the basement, and 28 are confirmed dead, according to records from the Lebanese Red Cross and the government hospital in Tyre" (emphasis added). If it was HRW's initiative that brought the revised figures to light, then the organization is to be commended for that, but this detail has no bearing on the passage in our analysis.
The central issue here is that much of the media describes all 29 people who were buried at the funeral as civilians killed at Qana. Clearly they were not all civilians. Furthermore, we cite at least one source that indicates that there were three fighters, not two that you suggest. We also have attached a photograph that shows that three of the graves draped with Hezbollah flags had posters on them, not two as you claim. And whether it was 2, 3 or 4 Hezbollah fighters, the question remains: why were they buried with the victims of the Qana bombing and why was this information not considered worthy of discussion by HRW?
The above should answer the four concerns you raised about our Sept. 7 piece. On a separate note, we have some new concerns about HRW’s report that were not addressed in our Sept. 7 piece:
• Although the HRW report "Fatal Strikes" focuses on a number of specific locales, the summary to that report makes a sweeping statement casting doubt on Israel’s assertion that Hezbollah uses human shields:
The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.
This general description, which gives the impression that Israel is lying when it accuses Hezbollah of using human shields, fails to take into account a number of documented cases in which the group does engage in such a practice.
One such case is even cited in the body of your report, which states:
Christian villagers fleeing the village of ‘Ain Ebel have also complained about Hezbollah tactics that placed them at risk, telling the New York Times that "Hezbollah came to [our village] to shoot its rockets.… They are shooting from between our houses."
Another account, by AP correspondent Todd Pittman, describes far more extensive Hezbollah activities than HRW indicates. His interviews with residents recount how in Marwaheen
[SIZE=-1]Hezbollah fighters in civilian clothes entered the village and set up launchers to fire rockets south into Israel. The guerrillas moved the launchers around, putting one on top of a house that was subsequently destroyed.
[/SIZE]
Mr. Pittman further noted:
A teenage girl who was in Marwaheen for the first three days of the war said she saw a Hezbollah fighter set up a rocket launcher with a timer on a nearby hillside, then run to the other side of the village near her home, taking refuge between civilian houses.Streaks of red crossed the sky as the launcher fired a volley into Israel, and minutes later Israel returned fire and huge explosions tore through the launch site, she said."We begged them to leave," the girl said, declining to be quoted by name because she feared retribution from Hezbollah. "We told them, 'Get out! We have children here. We don't want anybody to get hurt.' But they ignored us."
In light of these examples, how is it that "Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields"? Why does HRW avoid addressing clear examples of Hezbollah using human shields, for example putting a rocket launcher "on top of a house"?
• The Human Rights Watch report describes sixteen victims of the Israeli air strike on Srifa on July 19. All are men, and fourteen of them (88 percent) are between the ages of 17 and 35, an age range that fits the profile of most fighting men. HRW claims to give Israel the "benefit of the doubt" where evidence is uncertain, yet it seems eager to accept without question the assurances of a Srifa resident that these men were not combatants, despite the strikingly unrepresentative composition of this group of alleged civilian victims. It is of course true that not all groups of fighting-aged men are combatants; but did HRW question why no women and children were among the victims in these households? Did HRW consider or find it worth mentioning that a large gathering of fighting-aged men in the midst of a war might appear to Israel as a military target?
Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to your reply.
Steven Stotsky and Gilead Ini
Research Analysts
CAMERA
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
U.N. Bias Against Israel

Source: AIPAC, May 20, 2002.
U.N. institutional structures consistently are used to isolate and vilify Israel.

  • Israel is the only country in the world that is not eligible to sit on the Security Council, the principal policy making body of the U.N. This situation violates the principle of the "sovereign equality of all member states" of the U.N. under Article 2 of the U.N. Charter.
  • Seven of the 140 items submitted for a vote in the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in 2002 were anti-Israel. Last year, the UNGA adopted 19 anti-Israel resolutions.
  • Israel is the object of more investigative committees, special representatives and rapporteurs than any other state in the U.N. system. For example, a special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel 51 times during 27 years of activity. The Director-General of the International Labor Organization has sent a "Special Mission" to Israel and the territories every year for the past 17 years.
  • The "Special Committees" and "Palestinian Units" of the U.N. spend more than $3 million a year, essentially to spread anti-Israel propaganda. These bodies-the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division on Palestinian Rights and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs-are the focus of the worst anti-Israel activity under the aegis of the U.N. They organize, inter alia, the annual "Palestine Day" events at the U.N., as well as symposia and other events.
  • The U.N. has repeatedly held "Emergency Special Sessions" focusing solely on Israel. Originally conceived in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War, Emergency Special Sessions over the past 15 years have only focused on Israel. No Emergency Special Sessions were convened to examine the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or other major world conflicts.
  • The U.N. routinely attempts to circumvent the founding principle of direct negotiations. The UNGA passes annual resolutions that undermine the principles of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, based on direct negotiations between the two parties. By proposing specific solutions to issues such as Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and settlements, the U.N. pre-judges the outcome of negotiations. Ironically, it was the U.N. Security Council that proposed bilateral negotiations through Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
The U.N. has failed to investigate Palestinian actions supporting terrorism.

  • The U.N. has never initiated any inquiry into Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's role in aiding and abetting terrorists, or passed one resolution condemning any terrorist organization operating against Israel.
  • One glaring example of the U.N.'s biased policy against Israel is the concealment and vehement denial of the existence of videotape of Hezbollah's abduction of three Israeli soldiers made by U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon. For 11 months, the U.N. lied to the world and denied the existence of any evidence related to the abduction. When the cover-up was exposed, revealing the existence of the videotape, the U.N. eventually showed Israel a heavily edited videotape with the faces of the terrorists blurred. When asked the reason behind this, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated it was due to the U.N.'s standing as a neutral organization.
The U.N. has tolerated and fostered anti-Semitism and anti-Israel propaganda.

  • The U.N. has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets - including xenophobia - but has consistently refused to condemn anti-Semitism. It only was on November 24, 1998, more than 50 years after the U.N.'s founding, that the word anti-Semitism was first mentioned in a U.N. resolution (GA Res. A/53/623).
  • "The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." -Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 U.N. Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by Farouk al-Chareh, the Syrian Ambassador to the U.N., at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos, a charge recently recycled in a Saudi government sponsored newspaper.
  • On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the U.N. Human Rights Commission falsely charged Israel with injecting 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission promotes anti-Israel, anti-Semitic resolutions.

  • The Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts totally disproportionate resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while rogue states such as Syria and Libya are never criticized.
  • Last summer's conference on Human Rights in Durban, South Africa, was devoted almost entirely to condemning Israel. The conference was boycotted by the United States and Britain.
  • The United States was kicked off the U.N. Commission for Human Rights in May 2001, despite being one of the most outspoken advocates for human rights and a founding member of the Commission. It was replaced by Sierra Leone and the Sudan, both of which have records of abuses of human rights, including slavery and the forced use of children as soldiers. The United States recently regained its seat after a yearlong absence.
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/AIPAC-2002-05-20.asp
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
So let me get this straight. You are saying that pro-Israel lobby groups are qualified to give objective opinions about HRW's bias????

AIPAC
http://www.aipac.org/
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government in favor of maintaining a close US-Israel relationship. Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

Go to AIPAC's website. Here is what you will see:



Camera, a watchdog for news it considers "skewed" against Israel isn't much better

CAMERA
http://camera.org/
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a non-profit, tax-exempt media watchdog group based in Boston chiefly monitoring media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel. They were founded in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman in Washington, DC.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America

Wikipedia is a good starting point to learn more about HRW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch

Here is HRW's profile on Kenneth Roth
http://hrw.org/about/bios/kroth.htm

Their home page
http://hrw.org/

But I agree with CDNbear on one point. HRW and other "Rights" organizations should be monitored closely for bias. They are run by people with human weaknesses.

For example HRW was recently criticized for condemning non-violent Palestinian resistance:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/822/op131.htm

But that doesn't mean that these organizations are always wrong or right. Consider HRW and Amnesty International as good starting points for developing an objective opinion.

Lets put it this way, HRW and AI are clearly more objective than pro-Israel lobby groups.

Regarding Israel's membership in the UN:

Israel shouldn't even be in the UN, since it still hasn't met the conditions for its accpetance, which involves settling accounts with the 800,000 Palestinians it ethnically cleansed from Palestine and their descendants. Until Israel meets this condition and other obligations it pledged to uphold when it was accepted into the UN, it should be stripped of its seat at the UN and given the same level of UN recognition as Palestinians - observer status.

UN Resolution 273
Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the general Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations,"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_273

From Jews Against the Occupation
Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
[SIZE=-1]General Assembly Resolution 194[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], Dec. 11, 1948 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Security Council Resolution 242[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], Nov. 22, 1967 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Security Council Resolution 446[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], March 22, 1979 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
[SIZE=-1]General Assembly Resolution 3236[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], November 22, 1974 [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Affirms "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to self-determination without external interference" and "to national independence and sovereignty." [/SIZE]

[/SIZE]​
Reaffirmation of a Palestinian State
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Security Council Resolution 1397[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], March 12, 2002 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Affirms "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Also see:[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]UN General Assembly Resolution 181 - the 1947 Partition plan of Palestine and the creation of Israel.[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]International Humanitarian Law: the Geneva Conventions - 150 years of international designated protection of civilians during wartime and Israel's explicit violations.[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]History of the Palestinian Problem - from the Division for Palestinian Rights, United Nations[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Countless More UN Resolutions on Israel - 1955-1992[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]





[SIZE=-1]More UN [SIZE=-1]Resolutions on Israel, 1955-1992 [/SIZE][/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]Resolution 106: condemns Israel for Gaza raid.
Resolution 111: condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.
Resolution 127: recommends Israel suspend its no-man's zone' in Jerusalem.
Resolution 162: urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Resolution 171: determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Resolution 228: censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.
Resolution 237: urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Resolution 248: condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Resolution 250: calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Resolution 251: deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.
Resolution 252: declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.
Resolution 256: condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.
Resolution 259: deplores Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Resolution 262: condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.
Resolution 265: condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.
Resolution 267: censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 270: condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.
Resolution 271: condemns Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Resolution 279: demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 280: condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 285: demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 298: deplores Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 313: demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 316: condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 317: deplores Israel's refusal to release.
Resolution 332: condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 337: condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.
Resolution 347: condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 425: calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 427: calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.
Resolution 446: determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 450: calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Resolution 452: calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Resolution 465: deplores Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.
Resolution 467: strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.
Resolution 468: calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.
Resolution 469: strongly deplores Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians.
Resolution 471: expresses deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are null and void.
Resolution 478: censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
Resolution 484: declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.
Resolution 487: strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.
Resolution 497: decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Resolution 501: calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Resolution 509: demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.
Resolution 515: demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.
Resolution 517: censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 518: demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Resolution 520: condemns Israel's attack into West Beirut.
Resolution 573: condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.
Resolution 592: strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Resolution 605: strongly deplores Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 636: deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: deplores Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: deplores Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return....


http://www.jatonyc.org/
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]


[/SIZE]
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Yes of course they are all agianst you.

Don't let the fact that they site events in context, acknowledge the acts of both sides. They may have a bias, but it is hardly the bias like the BS you post.

The crap you post ignores and makes no or little comment of the actions that percipatated the response.

But hey, why wake up now, you and gopher like your dream world.

You can have it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Yes I suppose its nothing to the native people of Canada that they've suffered the outrages of an occupied nation. Seems perfectly acceptable that natives in Canada should be treated exactly the same as Palestinians...

Is this what you're suggesting Bear?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I made an assumption that you understand what a pro-Israel lobby group means.

Both AIPAC and CAMERA get funding from Israel to represent Israel's interests.

AIPAC's stated objective is to lobby on behalf of Israel. You can't get more subjective than that.

CAMERA is a little more subtle than AIPAC. (not much) They don't come out and state they are a pro-Israel interest group like AIPAC. They claim to be interested in correcting media errors about the middle east. But 100% of their requests for corrections relate to anyone who writes something negative about Israel. I have never seen a single example of CAMERA taking someone to task for making an error which makes Israel look good. Likely the news makes errors in Israel's favor at least occasionally.

From Wikipedia:
CAMERA is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable, which includes the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Defamation League, The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership, and other pro-Israel organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America

If CAMERA was truly interested in correcting media errors about the middle east, then they would not be so closely aligned with Israel's interests and they certainly wouldn't be taking money from the Israeli government.

Therefore CAMERA like AIPAC is an extension of Israeli government and highly subjective. I'm not saying don't listen to AIPAC or CAMERA, but consider their views as similar if not identical to Israel's.

But if really believe AIPAC or CAMERA are "objective" when it comes to Israel, then I chanllenge you to find something from either of these sources which is legitimately critical of Israel. Criticizing Israel for being too kind, humane and generous doesn't count.

>>>

AI and HRW do not accept funding from governments. They criticise everyone.... even Canada:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/can-summary-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR200012004

I agree with most of AI's criticisms of Canada. Poverty and violence against women especially on Canadian reserves are problems. If AI is accurate about Canada, then they are probably accurate in general about the world.

You can read for yourself what HRW writes about Canada:
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=canada

Over time I have learned to trust AI and HRW, but I still don't trust any one source completely. That's why I also rely on other sources that I have learned to trust:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_International_Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor

http://www.theonion.com/content/

(just checking to see if you followed my links)
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Yes I suppose its nothing to the native people of Canada that they've suffered the outrages of an occupied nation. Seems perfectly acceptable that natives in Canada should be treated exactly the same as Palestinians...

Is this what you're suggesting Bear?
No it is not. But oddly enough, I empathize with the Israeli's more, for the same reasons you site about First Nations peoples, displaced, persocuted, surrounded by genocidal loons, subjugation, etc.

I also feel for the "palestinians". but until they stop killing each other and stop causing 90% of their own misery, I can't feel all that bad for them. Just as I can't feel bad for my fellow Native brethern, that continue the stereotype. Get my drift. There has to be some accountablity somewhere, Israel is responsible for some, but no one seems to be willing to place any on the terrorist groups and their supporters.
I made an assumption that you understand what a pro-Israel lobby group means.

Both AIPAC and CAMERA get funding from Israel to represent Israel's interests.

AIPAC's stated objective is to lobby on behalf of Israel. You can't get more subjective than that.

CAMERA is a little more subtle than AIPAC. (not much) They don't come out and state they are a pro-Israel interest group like AIPAC. They claim to be interested in correcting media errors about the middle east. But 100% of their requests for corrections relate to anyone who writes something negative about Israel. I have never seen a single example of CAMERA taking someone to task for making an error which makes Israel look good. Likely the news makes errors in Israel's favor at least occasionally.

From Wikipedia:
CAMERA is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable, which includes the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Defamation League, The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership, and other pro-Israel organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America

If CAMERA was truly interested in correcting media errors about the middle east, then they would not be so closely aligned with Israel's interests and they certainly wouldn't be taking money from the Israeli government.

Therefore CAMERA like AIPAC is an extension of Israeli government and highly subjective. I'm not saying don't listen to AIPAC or CAMERA, but consider their views as similar if not identical to Israel's.

But if really believe AIPAC or CAMERA are "objective" when it comes to Israel, then I chanllenge you to find something from either of these sources which is legitimately critical of Israel. Criticizing Israel for being too kind, humane and generous doesn't count.

>>>

AI and HRW do not accept funding from governments. They criticise everyone.... even Canada:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/can-summary-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR200012004

I agree with most of AI's criticisms of Canada. Poverty and violence against women especially on Canadian reserves are problems. If AI is accurate about Canada, then they are probably accurate in general about the world.

You can read for yourself what HRW writes about Canada:
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=canada

Over time I have learned to trust AI and HRW, but I still don't trust any one source completely. That's why I also rely on other sources that I have learned to trust:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_International_Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor

http://www.theonion.com/content/

(just checking to see if you followed my links)
Hey look, I understand reality sucks and it is oft ugly and unfair. So to defend your senses you came up with the conspiracy of Zionism and apply no critical analysis to the material you choose to use as evidence.
It is evident when you link articles that not only ignore the actions that percipatate a reaction, but are footnoted to an OP-ED piece writen by a Lebonese woman columnist, with no supporting evidence and half the story missing. The half that contians the fact that the IDF was retaliating for a rocket attack.
Or you use the deluded rambling of an organisation that has been exposed as bias and unequal in its condemnation, no problem, I just can't take you seriously.

CAMERA may be pro Israel, but I challenge you to prove them wrong. They attack the inconsistancies that you love to use as proof. Of course you won't accept their material, even though it can be easily traced to the source, unlike the anti sites and tripe you post.

There is a monumental difference between pro something and anti something. You might try and learn it.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
So you are accepting the fact that if they were to lay down their arms, they would be summarily exterminated?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
So let me get this straight. You are saying that pro-Israel lobby groups are qualified to give objective opinions about HRW's bias????

AIPAC
http://www.aipac.org/
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government in favor of maintaining a close US-Israel relationship. Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

Go to AIPAC's website. Here is what you will see:



Camera, a watchdog for news it considers "skewed" against Israel isn't much better

CAMERA
http://camera.org/
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a non-profit, tax-exempt media watchdog group based in Boston chiefly monitoring media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and focusing primarily on correcting coverage that it considers inaccurate or unfairly skewed against Israel. They were founded in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman in Washington, DC.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America

Wikipedia is a good starting point to learn more about HRW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch

Here is HRW's profile on Kenneth Roth
http://hrw.org/about/bios/kroth.htm

Their home page
http://hrw.org/

But I agree with CDNbear on one point. HRW and other "Rights" organizations should be monitored closely for bias. They are run by people with human weaknesses.

For example HRW was recently criticized for condemning non-violent Palestinian resistance:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/822/op131.htm

But that doesn't mean that these organizations are always wrong or right. Consider HRW and Amnesty International as good starting points for developing an objective opinion.

Lets put it this way, HRW and AI are clearly more objective than pro-Israel lobby groups.

Regarding Israel's membership in the UN:

Israel shouldn't even be in the UN, since it still hasn't met the conditions for its accpetance, which involves settling accounts with the 800,000 Palestinians it ethnically cleansed from Palestine and their descendants. Until Israel meets this condition and other obligations it pledged to uphold when it was accepted into the UN, it should be stripped of its seat at the UN and given the same level of UN recognition as Palestinians - observer status.

UN Resolution 273


From Jews Against the Occupation
[SIZE=-1]


[/SIZE]

One thing all those resolutions have in common, is that they were all vetoed by the U.S. Israel and the U.S. have played tag team for decades. Israel would kill a few Palestinians or something, , someone would make a protesting resolution, and that resolution would be vetoed by the U.S. This ran on for years and is likely one of the reasons for 9/11
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
One thing all those resolutions have in common, is that they were all vetoed by the U.S. Israel and the U.S. have played tag team for decades. Israel would kill a few Palestinians or something, , someone would make a protesting resolution, and that resolution would be vetoed by the U.S. This ran on for years and is likely one of the reasons for 9/11
And your point would be???

As long as the Un levies resolution after resolution against Israel, with barely more then a slap on the wrist for the terrorists and Nations that support the Arab nazi party's. I will side with the US and Israel as the under dog.

When it becomes an equal playing feild, come back and talk to me.


Oral Statement delivered by Executive Director Hillel C. Neuer
March 18, 2005
________________

Commission on Human Rights, 61st Session
March 14 – April 22, 2005
________________

Item 5: The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination
and its Application to Peoples Under Colonial or Alien Domination
or Foreign Occupation


Mr. Chairman,

Item 5 concerns the right to self-determination, which UN Watch supports. But are the states that monopolize this Item to attack Israel truly concerned for this international human right?[1] Israel, which is again trading land in the hope for peace, has officially recognized Palestinian self-determination, in the Road Map and elsewhere. What, then, can be gained by resolutions and rhetoric asserting that which has already been accepted?
For these regimes, one thing only: an entrenchment of their decades-long campaign, centered at the United Nations, to demonize and delegitimize Israel and the Jewish people.
Year after year, precious UN time and resources—which could treat victims of AIDS in the developing world, of mass rape in Sudan or torture in North Korea—is instead consumed by 20 anti-Israel resolutions in the General Assembly, 5 at the Commission, and many others in fora such as the World Health Assembly. At the Commission, Israel is the only nation scrutinized under an exclusive Agenda Item; barred from any regional group; and targeted by half of all country-specific resolutions.
The objective of this assault is to cast Israel as the world’s number-one human rights violator. An automatic majority votes yes to the resolutions, giving them a veneer of international credibility, and a false image is sold to the world.
This campaign is pernicious—and should outrage all who believe in equality, peace and human rights.
First, the singling out of Israel for differential treatment constitutes a gross violation of the UN Charter’s guarantee of equal rights for all nations, large and small. As Secretary-General Annan said this week, UN bias against the Jewish state represents a “long-standing anomaly” that must be corrected.[2] The week before, Human Rights Watch criticized the Commission’s selectivity, noting its failure to condemn Palestinian terrorism.[3] Other actors—states and NGOs—must join their voices and publicly oppose this discrimination.
Second, the anti-Israel campaign is an obstacle to Middle East peace. The effect of one-sided resolutions in the region is to encourage extremists over moderates, intransigence over compromise.
Finally, if the Commission’s human rights agenda remains captive to the Israel-haters’ political agenda, our goal of restoring its credibility shall be elusive indeed.
Mr. Chairman,
At the dawn of a new era of reform, will this Commission address the world’s urgent violations? Or will yet another year of cynical diversions subvert the principles of equality, peace, and human rights?
Notes
[1] For example, Syria’s purported commitment to the right of self-determination is belied by its occupation of Lebanon. See UN Watch proposed Item 5 resolution for the right of the Lebanese people to self-determination (E/CN.4/2005/NGO/308), supported by, inter alia, the World Lebanese Cultural Union and the Syrian Reform Party. It is also belied by Syria’s repression of its Kurdish minority, particularly in Qamishli.
[2] UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “Remarks at Dinner Hosted by H.E. Mr. Moshe Katsav, President of the State of Israel,” March 15, 2005 <http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1350>. (“We need to correct a long-standing anomaly that kept Israel from participating fully and equally in the work of the [United Nations] Organization.”)
[3] Human Rights Watch, “Israel/Occupied Territories: Human Rights Concerns for the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights,” March 10, 2005 <http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/10/isrlpa10290.htm>.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
July 23, 2006:

Human Rights Watch's Q&A on Lebanon War: Selective and Distorted Application of International Law

By Dr. Avi Bell, Faculty of Law at Bar Ilan University and Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School
On July 17, 2006, Human Rights Watch issued a document entitled "Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah" with the stated purpose of "provid[ing] analytic guidance for those who are examining the fighting as well as for the parties to the conflict and those with the capacity to influence them."
The piece purports to be a neutral guide setting out the legal rules governing the current hostilities in Lebanon. However, the authors' distorted views of the underlying facts, selective omission of crucial legal issues, and insistent characterization of Hezbollah and Israel as the primary legal actors - with the attendant implied denial of legal responsibility of Lebanon, Syria and Iran to end their support for Hezbollah - all mislead readers and betray the bias of the piece. This is a consistent pattern followed by HRW in activities related to the Middle East.
The most outstanding example of HRW's approach is provided by its question "What is Hezbollah's status in relation to the conflict?" and the answer:
"Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament and government. As such a group, and as a party to the conflict with Israel, it is bound to conduct hostilities in compliance with customary international humanitarian law and common Article 3."
This description completely omits several legally important facts about Hezbollah. International law precedents such as decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia make it clear that militias like Hezbollah, given de facto authority by the government of Lebanon (in which Hezbollah has ministerial representation) and acting on behalf of Lebanon, are bound to follow the legal commitments of the state of Lebanon, which extend well beyond common Article 3 and customary law. Moreover, Lebanon itself has the legal responsibility to ensure that Hezbollah abide by international humanitarian law and other bodies of international law.
Furthermore, under Security Council resolution 1373, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Lebanon is legally required to take a host of actions against international terrorist groups. Hezbollah is a group that has deliberately targeted and murdered civilians in Israel, Argentina and elsewhere in order to intimidate the population of Israel, and thereby clearly falls into the definition of an international terrorist group. Lebanon is therefore required to end even passive support of Hezbollah; freeze Hezbollah funds; suppress Hezbollah recruitment; eliminate the supply of weapons to Hezbollah; deny safe haven to all Hezbollah persons who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts and bring all such persons to justice; and prevent Lebanese territory being used for the commission of such acts. Similarly, Syria and Iran are forbidden to supply arms to Hezbollah, supply funding or supply safe haven. Shockingly, the only reference to legal obligations related to terrorism in HRW's document is an accusation that the "logic" of alleged Israeli actions "opens the door to ... terrorism," followed by a warning to Israel (!) that "international humanitarian law explicitly prohibits attacks of which the primary purpose is to intimidate or instill terror in the civilian population."
Additionally, under article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Lebanon and all other signatories of the Convention are required to prevent further killings of Jews by Hezbollah and punish Hezbollah for past killings. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as killings committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such. Hezbollah has expressed its intent to destroy Jews as such a number of times, as reported, for example, by Badih Chayban in the October 23, 2002 Lebanese Daily Star, where Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was quoted as saying "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Each incident in which Jews are killed by Hezbollah is therefore an act of genocide, which countries like Lebanon and Israel (as signatories to the Convention) are legally required to punish and prevent. HRW makes no mention of the parties' legal duties under the Convention.
Another example of bias may be found in HRW's insinuation that Israel is not permitted to target the Beirut airport because, according to HRW, it is "at best debatable" that the Beirut airport "constitutes a station for the transport of arms and infrastructure used by Hezbollah" and a possible means of transporting kidnapped Israeli soldiers to another country. Contrary to HRW's suggestion, it is indisputable - except perhaps by HRW - that Hezbollah has no capability within Lebanon for fashioning weapons such as Katyusha rockets, Raad and Zilzal longer-range missiles, and anti-ship Silkworm missiles that have been used in the fighting of the last few weeks. Since this weaponry cannot be spontaneously generated, the airport is without doubt an important potential way station for transport of war materiel and also hostages. Indeed, Western (including Israeli) intelligence suggests that the airport has already been used in the past for such purposes if HRW has any contrary evidence, or even any ability to obtain contrary evidence, HRW has yet to identify it. Airports and other ports of entry, as well as other means of transportation like roads and bridges are well-recognized in customary international law as legitimate targets in war.
Further bias may be seen in the selection of issues. Eight questions are posed regarding Israeli military activity, and seven of the eight answers provided by HRW imply Israeli wrongdoing, often without legal or factual basis. By contrast, only three questions regard Hezbollah activity, with only one of HRW's answers directly acknowledging Hezbollah wrongdoing. HRW treats superficially Hezbollah's repeated violations of the laws of war in targeting civilians, using indiscriminate weaponry designed to needlessly enhance suffering, threatening the civilian population, using civilian shields and the like. Indeed, while Hezbollah's use of civilian shields and deliberate placement of military assets in civilian areas are gross violations of the laws of war, HRW refers to such acts only in passing.
HRW amplifies the image of Israeli wrongdoing by speculating as to the existence of improper Israeli motives and then sternly warning Israel against the speculated thought. HRW engages in no similar speculation regarding Hezbollah motives. Thus, for example, HRW speculates that the "real, unstated reason for Israel's attack on the airport may be precisely to impose a cost on Lebanese civilians."
Similarly, HRW issues a number of warnings about possible future actions of the parties that might constitute war crimes - such as a possible Israeli failure to permit free passage of food or medical supplies. Here again, HRW's speculations are limited to imagined future Israeli wrongdoing, rather than imagined future Hezbollah wrongdoing.
Numerous sections of the piece mislead. Consider, for instance, HRW's discussion of the illegality of Hezbollah's cross-border attack on July 12 against an Israeli patrol (killing eight) and kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. HRW asks "was Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers lawful?" and answers "[t]he targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law[; h]owever captured combatants must in all circumstances be treated humanely."
This answer is extremely deceptive. It is true that this one of the few Hezbollah attacks that actually abides by the "distinction" rule in international humanitarian law that requires that military actions be aimed at military rather than civilian targets. However, the rule of "distinction" is not the only relevant rule of international law. International laws of war forbid Hezbollah and other Lebanese-Iranian militias from violating Israeli sovereignty with a military attack unless justified by factors not available in this case to Hezbollah (such as self-defense). Thus, a complete answer would say that this attack was probably a crime of aggression, although it is one of the few Hezbollah attacks that is not, in addition, a violation of the legal rules of distinction.
HRW buries Hezbollah's crime of aggression under jargon in a different place in the document where it alludes obliquely to the illegality of the attack, equally obliquely suggests (contrary to international law) that Israel has no right to self-defense and concludes, bizarrely, that "n accordance with its institutional mandate, Human Rights Watch maintains a position of strict neutrality on these issues of jus ad bellum because we find it the best way to promote our primary goal of encouraging both sides in the course of the conflict to respect international humanitarian law"
Crimes of aggression are serious violations of the law of war that were prosecuted at Nuremburg, and are prosecutable under a number of international legal instruments today. How HRW fulfills its institutional mandate or promotes respect for the law by whitewashing Hezbollah's crimes of aggression - and by hiding Lebanon's, Syria's and Iran's legal responsibilities, diminishing other Hezbollah war crimes, and amplifying imagined Israeli wrongdoing - is not clear.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
As long as the Un levies resolution after resolution against Israel, with barely more then a slap on the wrist for the terrorists and Nations that support the Arab nazi party's. I will side with the US and Israel as the under dog.

Which terrorists got a slap on the wrist?

There are no Arab Nazi parties.

It is not the UN that makes resolutions against Israel, it is neighboring countries who tire of the injustice and the one-sided foreign policy of the U.S. Look at the military of Israel, and look at what the Arab countries have.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Which terrorists got a slap on the wrist?

There are no Arab Nazi parties.

It is not the UN that makes resolutions against Israel, it is neighboring countries who tire of the injustice and the one-sided foreign policy of the U.S. Look at the military of Israel, and look at what the Arab countries have.
You're right, they don't even get that.

The Hezbollah...

There is a thread all about it, if you want I'll post the link. But I think you already know that, but will argue incontrivertable evidence, complete with documents from British archieves and detailed history and family tree, of how the nazi party bore the Arab brotherhood and so on down the line.

Ya look at the military Israel has and then think about the fact that it hasn't unleashed it on the asshats that continuously harrass it. They should be thanking Allah.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
CDNBear

I won't respond to your obviously bigoted rant. You are welcome to your opinions. Enjoy.
 

RomSpaceKnight

Council Member
Oct 30, 2006
1,384
23
38
61
London, Ont. Canada
Which terrorists got a slap on the wrist?

There are no Arab Nazi parties.

It is not the UN that makes resolutions against Israel, it is neighboring countries who tire of the injustice and the one-sided foreign policy of the U.S. Look at the military of Israel, and look at what the Arab countries have.

Of course HRW is biased. They are about "individual" human rights. "Individual" Lebanese civilians have every right to be safe from Isreali goverment attacks. Isreal should have taken more care to allow civilians to evacuate. Hezbollah should have more balls than hide amongst the civilian population. If you are stupid enough to hurl rockets at Isreali civilian targets and kidnap Isreali soldiers, you deserve what you get. There are many many Palestinian Arabs who work and live within Isreal. If all dropped the rhetoric and religious BS I am sure a peaceful settlement could be reached.

What do you call the Syrian Baathist party if not facist? How about the mass killing of 25,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood by Syria? You don't see the similarities between Saudi religious police and the Gestapo? Both operate(d) above the control of the usual police forces.

Before the collapse of the USSR, the neighbouring countries got just as much military support from the Soviets as Isreal got from the US. The Isrealis are fighting for their lives with their backs to the sea is why they keep winning when attacked by combined forces of neighbouring countries. Anwar Sadat was assasinated for making peace with Isreal.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
One thing all those resolutions have in common, is that they were all vetoed by the U.S. Israel and the U.S. have played tag team for decades. Israel would kill a few Palestinians or something, , someone would make a protesting resolution, and that resolution would be vetoed by the U.S. This ran on for years and is likely one of the reasons for 9/11

Its sad and so blatant. All the diplomats of the world can see in plain sight what the US and Israel are up to, but are completely powerless to do anything about it. Occasionally they make strongly worded condemnations which are ignored, so what's the point?

Plus these nations have their own problems like poverty, aids, human slavery... Is it worth diverting their limited resources from solving their problems to solve problems created by the US and Israeli governments?

The people most able to change the American and Israeli government are the American and Israeli people. These citizens not only can change their govenments, they have a responsibility to change their governments. The majority in these countries don't like their governments, but they also don't bother to vote.

The real problem here is chronic indifference and apathy

9/11 woke a few people up, but their attention was easily diverted to Iraq. Most Americans still don't know that most 9/11 hijackers came from the world's most opppressive regimes which also happen to be some of America's closest allies. But 9/11 is a sign that middle east problems are becoming American problems. The world is much smaller than it used to be.

Saudis and Egyptians blame the American government for their oppression as much as they blame their own governments.

Palestinians blame Americans for the death and destruction they endure daily as much as they blame Israel.

The Lebanese and Palestinians know Israelis use mostly American military hardware bought with mostly American tax dollars. They also know that when Israel ran out of bombs last summer, Americans dipped into their weapons stockpiles to help Israel continue bombing Lebanon.

1.3 billion Muslims watched live broadcasts by Al Jazeera as Americans liberated Baghdad, Israelis gave Beruit a measured response and as the IDF defends itself in Gaza city daily. They have seen thousands of twisted bodies of men, women and children and then watched Americans and Israelis re-elect the people responsible. How do you think theyb feel?

Thats why more people hate Americans and Israelis than ever before and I doubt killing more people will help change that.

Eventually this path leads to mutual destruction...
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
CDNBear

I won't respond to your obviously bigoted rant. You are welcome to your opinions. Enjoy.
You're damn right I have a bigoted view of asshat terrorists.

Anyone that doesn't, needs help.

And you're welcome to yours. But I fail to see your point. Well I see a lack of one, I highly suspect that the accusation that I am a bigot, without cause or proof, is an attempt to hide the failure in being able to disprove my claims.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Of course HRW is biased. They are about "individual" human rights. "Individual" Lebanese civilians have every right to be safe from Isreali goverment attacks. Isreal should have taken more care to allow civilians to evacuate. Hezbollah should have more balls than hide amongst the civilian population. If you are stupid enough to hurl rockets at Isreali civilian targets and kidnap Isreali soldiers, you deserve what you get. There are many many Palestinian Arabs who work and live within Isreal. If all dropped the rhetoric and religious BS I am sure a peaceful settlement could be reached.

What do you call the Syrian Baathist party if not facist? How about the mass killing of 25,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood by Syria? You don't see the similarities between Saudi religious police and the Gestapo? Both operate(d) above the control of the usual police forces.

Before the collapse of the USSR, the neighbouring countries got just as much military support from the Soviets as Isreal got from the US. The Isrealis are fighting for their lives with their backs to the sea is why they keep winning when attacked by combined forces of neighbouring countries. Anwar Sadat was assasinated for making peace with Isreal.
All valid and excellent points, lost on those that continuosly defend aggression against Israel, by claiming it US involvement and Israel's actions that are the sole actions, that percipate it.

Not one of the apologists have been able to, nor have they attempted to explain it.
Its sad and so blatant. All the diplomats of the world can see in plain sight what the US and Israel are up to, but are completely powerless to do anything about it. Occasionally they make strongly worded condemnations which are ignored, so what's the point?

Plus these nations have their own problems like poverty, aids, human slavery... Is it worth diverting their limited resources from solving their problems to solve problems created by the US and Israeli governments?

The people most able to change the American and Israeli government are the American and Israeli people. These citizens not only can change their govenments, they have a responsibility to change their governments. The majority in these countries don't like their governments, but they also don't bother to vote.

The real problem here is chronic indifference and apathy

9/11 woke a few people up, but their attention was easily diverted to Iraq. Most Americans still don't know that most 9/11 hijackers came from the world's most opppressive regimes which also happen to be some of America's closest allies. But 9/11 is a sign that middle east problems are becoming American problems. The world is much smaller than it used to be.

Saudis and Egyptians blame the American government for their oppression as much as they blame their own governments.

Palestinians blame Americans for the death and destruction they endure daily as much as they blame Israel.

The Lebanese and Palestinians know Israelis use mostly American military hardware bought with mostly American tax dollars. They also know that when Israel ran out of bombs last summer, Americans dipped into their weapons stockpiles to help Israel continue bombing Lebanon.

1.3 billion Muslims watched live broadcasts by Al Jazeera as Americans liberated Baghdad, Israelis gave Beruit a measured response and as the IDF defends itself in Gaza city daily. They have seen thousands of twisted bodies of men, women and children and then watched Americans and Israelis re-elect the people responsible. How do you think theyb feel?

Thats why more people hate Americans and Israelis than ever before and I doubt killing more people will help change that.

Eventually this path leads to mutual destruction...
All these powerless hateful nations you speak of, do they cry out against the actions of terrorist groups and cease supporting them?

Do they pay lip service in front of the camera, while funneling weapons and money into the hands of those that would use them/it to further the cycle of violence?

You and juan's selective outrage, and regardless of your self deluded notions of being equaly outraged, I have yet to see either one of you, accept/admit the fact that you have a bias. Seems your claims of unbiased outrage are tad disengenuous.

Unlike either of you, I am genuinely outraged all the acts of ignorance, by my alliegence is to Israel and the US. I do not agree with US foreign policy, I do not agree with the IDF's indiscriminat targetting, but here lies the biggest difference between someone like myself and the likes of either of you, I admit my bias. I don't try and hide it behind fained attempts at looking morally superiority to anyone else, like you and your ilk.