dub

i fully agree with you about the number of people who are suffering around the world outside of the much discussed region. you are absolutely right. the main reason why israel receives more focus is not because of antisemitism (however, i'm sure there are some whose reason is this), but it's because israel is fully supported by the western governments. not only do they receive major political support, but they also receive $3billion a year from the U.S. they've managed to violate the palestinians' rights for so long with the full support of the west, specifically the U.S. furthermore, human rights violations are not always about the number of people killed. it is also about the conditions that the victims have to live under. just before the apartheid regime in south africa ended, there was a lot of focus on it as well. mainly because those who led the apartheid regime had a strong connection to the west just like israel does.

yes. all the other organizations are biased too, i suppose. so are the 154 countries, including france and the uk who voted to put israel on the list of countries with poor human rights records. right.

israel has been an occupier for over 60 years and they continue to expand their illegal settlements. they have control of what goes in and what goes out and the palestinian territory, specifically gaza, is like an open air prison. they also violate the rights of the palestinians by their military attacks. you don't think they should be criticized? no other country has been behaving this way for so long. israel is a special case and receives the attention that is warranted.

i thought we were talking about the Haredi, monkey boy?

from wikipedia: The seats are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group. what's the problem with having delegates from all over the world? at the moment, canada also sits on the council. the reason israel is not part of this council is because they don't want to participate. US's formal position on the UNHRC: The deep commitment of the United States to championing the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is driven by the founding values of our nation and the conviction that international peace, security, and prosperity are strengthened when human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected and protected. As the United States seeks to advance human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world, we do so cognizant of our own commitment to live up to our ideals at home and to meet our international human rights obligations. In support of the United States candidacy for membership in the UN Human Rights Council the United States makes the following pledges: Commitment to Advancing Human Rights in the UN System; Commitment to Continue to Support Human Rights Activities in the UN Commitment to Advancing Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and Human Dignity and Prosperity Internationally; Commitment to Advancing Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the United States. however, the israeli lobby does hold a lot of power, so any criticism of israel is bound to get a reaction out of the U.S. from wikipedia: The United States joined with Australia, Canada, Israel, and three other countries in opposing the UNHRC's draft resolution on working rules citing continuing misplaced focus on Israel at the expense of action against countries with poor human-rights records. The resolution passed 154-7 in a rare vote forced by Israel including the support of France, the United Kingdom, and China, although it is usually approved through consensus. so according to you war crimes apologists, all 154 countries, the 3 human rights organizations, numerous international law experts are all anti-semites and jew haters. you want to believe your own shit, go for it.

in your words and the words of a war crimes apologist, yes. how is the report biased? i'm assuming you've read the report and have specific details of how it is biased to have come to this conclusion.

the evidence is in the 127 page report where they've gone over not only israel's war crimes but also hamas'. i see that you have yet to have found any old links and opinion pieces trying to use as your proof that the red cross and HRW's reports are also 'bogus'.

this extreme group compromises of close to 1/5 of israel's population. that's a big percentage of the population. your claim that they receive a lot of publicity is without merit.

it's an opinion piece from 2006 vs a report put out by AI for a 2008/9 incident. you fail.

lols. yes. AI is a crook. that is your response to AI's report and the red cross' report and HRW report and UN's probe into the gaza attack. like i said before, these are bad time for war crimes apologists.

i'll remind you why you're a biased idiot who will try to go to any length to share misinformation: #1 - you've posted an article from 2006 and it has nothing to do with gaza #2 - you've posted an article by OJ simpons' ex lawyer, alan dershowitz. #3 - there are other international rights organizations who have come out with reports showing that israel has committed war crimes. you fail again.

it's good that you've decided to move along from your embarrassing display of trying to defend using an opinion from a person who agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report to say that amnesty's report is useless. the GC are a set of laws for humanitarian concerns which we are all a signatory to. who is better at interpreting this law than expert human rights organizations who have been doing this for decades? not just amnesty international, but also international red cross, HRW and UN Human Rights Council. maybe you want to tell others that a military officer is better at interpreting it than these guys, but majority of the world knows better.

it is these religious wackos who voted lieberman in and have backed bibi. it is these wackos who have pushed for and succeeded in the expansion of the settlements. the settlements where these wackos live. the same settlements that are one of the major obstacles of any progress towards a just peace deal.

you're babbling. why have you only blamed her for what happened and haven't even said one word about how these extremists are wrong? do you ever excuse wife beating by saying: "she asked for it." ?

so you're saying that these jewish extremists are like birds and shit through their mouths with no control of who they're spitting on? i guess you're right, she asked for it.

so now you're comparing these jewish extremists to a natural disaster that has no will of its own and no control of its actions?

this has become a pattern. you screw up. i call you on it. you go into denial mode. maybe another break from this forum is in order or maybe your problem is permanent. so after all of this, the conclusion still stands: 3 reputable human rights organizations, amnesty, the red cross and HRW and "soon to be" UNHRC report led by richard goldstone (another self-hating jew who was the chief UN prosecutor in rwanda and yugo) who have and will report that israel has violated international law and has committed war crimes. i guess these days, it's really difficult being a war crimes apologist.

you're angry and babbling (and your fat fingers seem to be getting in the way) because you screwed up and tried to use someone's opinion who actually agrees with amnesty's conclusion that israel has committed war crimes. oh and the chairman of the anti-apartheid committee kind of likes amnesty international. but who cares about him when you have found an opinion from a guy who you don't agree with at all. lols.

okay. so getting back to your previous comments about "latching on.." as mentioned, at the moment, i am pointing out 3 reports by the red cross, HRW and amnesty who all point to israel committing war crimes. i've also pointed out israel's violations of UN resolutions. if you want latching on? just look at dancer's desperate post to try to discredit one of the organizations where he quotes an opinion about amnesty from someone who actually agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report, that israel commits war crimes. lets be honest about the situation, shall we?

i'm latching onto 3 human rights organizations' reports and to UN resolutions. dancer fucked up. he desperately looked for something to try to discredit amnesty and didn't check to see who it was that he was quoting. the guy he quoted is an international law professor who has on numerous times accused israel of committing war crimes. it just happens that dancer is trying to discredit amnesty for their report on israel's war crimes. bonam, you've shown flashes of honesty in these discussions. you'd really be hurting your credibility by trying to stand up for dancer's big booboo.

oh yeah. lol @ Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel haha. anyway: but he agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report; that israel commits war crimes.

you quoted him to try to help your argument. does that make you a part time goof and fruitbar?

so you're okay with quoting a fruitcake when his comments suit you but any other time he's a fruitcake? does that make you a part time fruitcake?

but he also agrees that israel has committed war crimes.

oh that krusty.