Red Cross report: Gazans ‘in despair’

[Bonam]

UN Human Rights Council Bias:

As of January 24, 2008, Israel had been condemned 15 times in less than two years. The UN Human Rights Council, like its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission, has been criticized by some Western countries[who?] for its fixation on Israel while ignoring the actions of neighboring states. This has lead to accusations of the organization being anti-Israeli.[24] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[25][26] Toward Sudan, another country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern."[25]

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Righ..._against_Israel

You might also note that UNHRC includes many Arab nations (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) and even more Muslim nations, and yet excludes Israel. What qualifies a nation like Saudi Arabia to sit on a Human Rights Council I don't know...

Amnesty International Bias:

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7...3604542,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069136.html

http://www.cicweb.ca/scene/2009/02/america...the-law-of-war/

Oh and before you discount all these sources as "lobby groups", as you are fond of doing, take a moment to think about who else would bother documenting and pointing out instances of bias against Israel.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[dub]

So in otherwords no, AI is just as biases and flawed as ever.

in your words and the words of a war crimes apologist, yes.

127 pages of biased flawed opinion. A good editor could get it down to one line.

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.

[dub]

UN Human Rights Council Bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Righ..._against_Israel

You might also note that UNHRC includes many Arab nations (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) and even more Muslim nations, and yet excludes Israel. What qualifies a nation like Saudi Arabia to sit on a Human Rights Council I don't know...

Amnesty International Bias:

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7...3604542,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069136.html

http://www.cicweb.ca/scene/2009/02/america...the-law-of-war/

Oh and before you discount all these sources as "lobby groups", as you are fond of doing, take a moment to think about who else would bother documenting and pointing out instances of bias against Israel.

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.

[Bonam]

I haven't read that specific report, but I can tell you this, these types of documents from these types of organizations tend to be biased in what they do not say, rather than in what they say. The bias can be detected in what an organization focuses on and emphasizes, and what it brushes under the rug or devotes only minimal time to.

The report can list every single missile that Israel fired, every bomb it dropped, every bullet shot by one of its soldiers. It can get everything perfectly accurate, documenting every death, both military and civilian among Israel's enemies. It can do the same thing for Hamas. And yet, when a report fails to mention the differences in intent, the motivations of the two sides, their ideas and ideologies, that is when it shows bias. When it fails to differentiate between Israel's non-intended killing of civilians, which it frequently investigates and apologizes for, and often even compensates the victim's family's for, and Hamas' purposeful firing of rockets into civilian areas, that is when it shows bias.

When an organization issues multiple resolutions and condemnations of Israel, which has killed at the most a few thousand people over the last several years, many of them militants, and yet fails to condemn more strongly nations that have carried out far greater abuses of human rights, that is when the bias shows. The UNHRC has issued resolutions condemning Israel 9 times, and has failed to specifically condemn any other nation EVEN A SINGLE TIME. That is bias. The facts stated can be correct, but the facts omitted, the statements not made, that is what makes these organizations so utterly wrong.

[Bonam]

...

The UNHRC has condemned Israel 9 times, and never condemned any other nation. The UNHRC is structurally required to review Israel's conduct on a regular and frequent basis, the only nation it is mandated to review in such a way. The UNHRC is hopelessly biased. It ignores far larger crimes than Israel could ever dream of committing, and focuses singularly on Israel.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

in your words and the words of a war crimes apologist, yes.

Oh you agree too then?

[M.Dancer]

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.

It is written by a biased group.

[dub]

The UNHRC has condemned Israel 9 times, and never condemned any other nation. The UNHRC is structurally required to review Israel's conduct on a regular and frequent basis, the only nation it is mandated to review in such a way. The UNHRC is hopelessly biased. It ignores far larger crimes than Israel could ever dream of committing, and focuses singularly on Israel.

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.

[M.Dancer]

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.

't

If you canfigure out that fundamental flaw then you are lost. How many countries in Africa have a human rights record as good as say, the worst western european offender? Asia? Eastern Europe?

Might as well make the criteria, Do you hate jews?

...come to think of it, are you a member?

[dub]

It is written by a biased group.

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.

[Bonam]

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.

That is where you are wrong. Israel's alleged crimes against the Palestinians pale in comparison to the crimes of many other nations, which have gone uncriticized. Is what Israel has done worse than the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians in your mind? Even the UN's secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, has criticized the UNHRC and told it that it "must rise above partisan posturing and regional divides. The Council must address human rights abuses wherever they occur."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...lBrandChannel=0

It is well known that human rights violations in Africa and the Arab world have been almost completely ignored by the UNHRC, while it has focused almost exclusively on Israel. This is bias. If you think that Israel honestly deserves more criticism than all the other regimes in the rest of the world combined, the extent of your delusions must be truly epic.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[dub]

That is where you are wrong. Israel's alleged crimes against the Palestinians pale in comparison to the crimes of many other nations, which have gone uncriticized. Is what Israel has done worse than the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians in your mind? Even the UN's secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, has criticized the UNHRC and told it that it "must rise above partisan posturing and regional divides. The Council must address human rights abuses wherever they occur."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...lBrandChannel=0

It is well known that human rights violations in Africa and the Arab world have been almost completely ignored by the UNHRC, while it has focused almost exclusively on Israel. This is bias. If you think that Israel honestly deserves more criticism than all the other regimes in the rest of the world combined, the extent of your delusions must be truly epic.

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.

[M.Dancer]

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.

So you are saying it is the hatred of America which causes the disproportionate focus on Israel, not the hared of Jews?

[Bonam]

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.

And yet you seem never to bother mentioning any such suffering, instead focusing solely on Israel, much like the UNHRC.

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.

What is so special about Western or US support? Many of the perpetrators of crimes far worse than Israel's alleged crimes also have international support. Some nations with terrible human rights also have support from Western sources, like Saudi Arabia from the US. Others have support from other large economic and military powers, like Russia and China. Where a nation gets some of its support from is not a cause for, nor the subject of, the criticism.

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.

So the systematic rape, mass starvation, utter dehumanization and barbarism of, for example, Darfur are better conditions than what the Palestinians experience? You couldn't be more wrong.

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.

What you really mean to say here is that they were white, just like the majority of Israelis are. Neither the race or skin color of the majority group in a given nation, nor where they receive their support from, should be the basis of the criticism that they receive from the international community. The extent, intent, and veracity of their misdeeds should be the basis of any condemnation. This has clearly not been the case with regards to the actions of the UNHRC, which, again, has failed to specifically condemn any other nation besides Israel even a single time.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[dub]

And yet you seem never to bother mentioning any such suffering, instead focusing solely on Israel, much like the UNHRC.

there is a life beyond the mapleleafweb forum. i've done my share of chit chats and essays on africa. i probably would get into long winded discussions if someone came in here and said: "what mugabe is doing is not a war crime" or "saudi treats women great!". but no one does that here.

What is so special about Western or US support? Many of the perpetrators of crimes far worse than Israel's alleged crimes also have international support. Some nations with terrible human rights also have support from Western sources, like Saudi Arabia from the US. Others have support from other large economic and military powers, like Russia and China. Where a nation gets some of its support from is not a cause for, nor the subject of, the criticism.

saudi and many other countries treat their own people quite bad, however, again, no one here disputes it, so there is nothing to discuss. also, another difference is that they're not committing these violations outside of their borders like israel is on the palestinians.

So the systematic rape, mass starvation, utter dehumanization and barbarism of, for example, Darfur are better conditions than what the Palestinians experience? You couldn't be more wrong.

no one supports those who are committing the violations besides a few other african governments. there is no economic trade with darfur and no political support from anyone outside of china.

What you really mean to say here is that they were white, just like the majority of Israelis are. Neither the race or skin color of the majority group in a given nation, nor where they receive their support from, should be the basis of the criticism that they receive from the international community.

that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that we, as in our governments, support israel despite their violations of human rights.

The extent, intent, and veracity of their misdeeds should be the basis of any condemnation. This has clearly not been the case with regards to the actions of the UNHRC, which, again, has failed to specifically condemn any other nation besides Israel even a single time.

you obviously haven't checked to see what UNHRC has done since 2007 (when they were established)

you really should look into their coverage of other violations, like in sudan, before making such claims.

as you mentioned, you haven't even looked at the amnesty report. why not take a look at it before coming into your conclusions. if you have time, also look into red cross and HRC's reports as well.

[M.Dancer]

The real reason why the US figures in the focus on Israel is that is where HRW and AI get most of their donations...fromguilt ridden amewricans....got to milk the cow.

[dub]

The real reason why the US figures in the focus on Israel is that is where HRW and AI get most of their donations...fromguilt ridden amewricans....got to milk the cow.

speaking of milking the cow... you'd think israel would feel guilty about violating their commitment to US peace plan and freeze the settlements after receiving $3billion in handouts every year.

you don't seem to agree, but i think it's okay to give donations to groups who stand for human rights as oppose to those who violate them.

[Bonam]

there is a life beyond the mapleleafweb forum. i've done my share of chit chats and essays on africa. i probably would get into long winded discussions if someone came in here and said: "what mugabe is doing is not a war crime" or "saudi treats women great!". but no one does that here.

And that is why it is excusable for you - you are just here to debate and have a personal quest on some topic. But it is not excusable for human rights organizations, whose role should be to impartially report on abuses of human rights all around the world equally, and to provide assistance as they can. Instead, they, like you, focus on Israel, and they should not. That is why they are biased.

saudi and many other countries treat their own people quite bad, however, again, no one here disputes it, so there is nothing to discuss. also, another difference is that they're not committing these violations outside of their borders like israel is on the palestinians.

Their own people according to who? Are the conquered Tibetans and Uighurs of China "their people"? Are the subjugated Muslims of Russia "their people"? Were the Jews of Germany in the 1930s/1940s "their people" and "not outside their borders" and so it was ok what was done to them? If you are such a firm believer in human rights, you should realize that human rights are human rights everywhere, regardless of what border one happens to be inside of, and that people whose human rights are being violated deserve equal attention and aid, and the perpetrators deserve equal condemnation, whether they are inside or outside some line on a map.

no one supports those who are committing the violations besides a few other african governments. there is no economic trade with darfur and no political support from anyone outside of china.

And yet there is plenty of economic trade with China, which has its own human rights violations. Few may support the actions committed in places like Sudan, and yet there is relatively little condemnation as well. It should be stark and clear, from every one of those organizations like HRW and AI and UNHRC that you like to trumpet, and yet such condemnation falls far short of what they have to say about Israel. Again, bias.

you obviously haven't checked to see what UNHRC has done since 2007 (when they were established)

You're right, they've issued a bunch more resolutions since the point in time from where I got my statement that they had issues 9. Let's see here:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/browse-un.asp?ya...;tpn=Resolution

23 resolutions on Israel, 21 on the rest of the world combined. Nope, still completely, unforgivably, almost incomprehensibly biased. Israel apparently is still worse than all the murderous and brutal regimes in the world combined. I guess it's getting a bit better though. At least it's not 9-0 anymore.

you really should look into their coverage of other violations, like in sudan, before making such claims.

Yes, they've covered it to some extent. Their coverage is not proportional. That's a term your type likes a lot, proportionality. Where is the proportionality of these condemnations and allegations?

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[dub]

And that is why it is excusable for you - you are just here to debate and have a personal quest on some topic. But it is not excusable for human rights organizations, whose role should be to impartially report on abuses of human rights all around the world equally, and to provide assistance as they can. Instead, they, like you, focus on Israel, and they should not. That is why they are biased.

UNHRC is relatively new. what about amnesty, the red cross, HRW? all these other organizations have covered violations around the world. it seems like you choose to ignore this fact.

Their own people according to who? Are the conquered Tibetans and Uighurs of China "their people"? Are the subjugated Muslims of Russia "their people"? Were the Jews of Germany in the 1930s/1940s "their people" and "not outside their borders" and so it was ok what was done to them? If you are such a firm believer in human rights, you should realize that human rights are human rights everywhere, regardless of what border one happens to be inside of, and that people whose human rights are being violated deserve equal attention and aid, and the perpetrators deserve equal condemnation, whether they are inside or outside some line on a map.

from what i remember, amnesty, red cross and HRW have covered tibet and chechnya. UNHRC has as well, but to a lesser extend. but again, they're only a few years old. UNHCR which is a little different than UNHRC monitors and assists people in chechnya extensively.

And yet there is plenty of economic trade with China, which has its own human rights violations. Few may support the actions committed in places like Sudan, and yet there is relatively little condemnation as well. It should be stark and clear, from every one of those organizations like HRW and AI and UNHRC that you like to trumpet, and yet such condemnation falls far short of what they have to say about Israel. Again, bias.

israel, just like china, has not been penalized for their human rights violations. you don't think there has been massive coverage of china's treatment of people in tibet?

you should look into what HRW and AI have reported on china's violations of human rights. because what you're saying is incorrect.

You're right, they've issued a bunch more resolutions since the point in time from where I got my statement that they had issues 9. Let's see here:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/browse-un.asp?ya...;tpn=Resolution

23 resolutions on Israel, 21 on the rest of the world combined. Nope, still completely, unforgivably, almost incomprehensibly biased. Israel apparently is still worse than all the murderous and brutal regimes in the world combined. I guess it's getting a bit better though. At least it's not 9-0 anymore.

israel does not only use it's military that punishes the palestinian people, but they've also created a blockade that holds the gazans in a prison. this has been going on for over 2 years. not to mention the decades old question of the palestinian refugees.

israel's violations is a lot bigger than you're trying to make it out to be. they're violations that have been ongoing for over half a century. much longer than the sporadic issues in africa which the western countries do not support.

Yes, they've covered it to some extent. Their coverage is not proportional. That's a term your type likes a lot, proportionality. Where is the proportionality of these condemnations and allegations?

me types. heh.

again, look into amnesty, HRW and red cross' reports on other conflicts and issues then comeback to me about this lack of proportional coverage.

[dub]

so have you had a chance to look at any of the reports on israel's violations or are you going to continue to dismiss the reports because sudan is not getting as much attention?

[Bonam]

UNHRC is relatively new. what about amnesty, the red cross, HRW? all these other organizations have covered violations around the world. it seems like you choose to ignore this fact.

Let's stick to one organization at a time shall we?

israel does not only use it's military that punishes the palestinian people, but they've also created a blockade that holds the gazans in a prison. this has been going on for over 2 years. not to mention the decades old question of the palestinian refugees.

israel's violations is a lot bigger than you're trying to make it out to be. they're violations that have been ongoing for over half a century. much longer than the sporadic issues in africa which the western countries do not support.

So is your contention then that Israel does indeed deserve more condemnation than all other regimes in the world combined?

again, look into amnesty, HRW and red cross' reports on other conflicts and issues then comeback to me about this lack of proportional coverage.

I've brought data showing UNHRC's coverage is hopelessly biased. 23 resolutions on Israel and 21 on the rest of the world. If you want to make a point about some of these other organizations, feel free to find some statistics and post them here.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[dub]

Let's stick to one organization at a time shall we?

why?

i mean, if all these organizations have said that israel committed war crimes, why try to minimize these reports by picking and choosing?

if all these human rights organizations have said israel has committed war crimes, maybe it's time to accept that israel has done so.

So is your contention then that Israel does indeed deserve more condemnation than all other regimes in the world combined?

i think it deserves more discussion because there seems to be a group here in north america who want to apologize for israel's violations. these are the same people who champion criticism of other nation's violations, but for some reason, they believe israel should not be criticized and condemned.

I've brought data showing UNHRC's coverage is hopelessly biased. 23 resolutions on Israel and 21 on the rest of the world. If you want to make a point about some of these other organizations, feel free to find some statistics and post them here.

i don't discount UNHRC's resolutions, in the 2 years that have focused on israel more than other nations. i also don't discount the reports by human rights organizations that have concluded that israel has committed war crimes.

i mean, this particular thread is on the red cross and HRW and another is on amnesty.

so because the UNHRC's resolutions have shown a focus on israel's violations, does that mean all the other reports are invalid?

[Sulaco]

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.

This post is a great demonstration of your selectivity re: "international law". Your timeline for Israel's "occupation" of other lands implicates it's internationally lawful inception. I guess international alws that work for the Jews just don't work for you.

Responding to the grander claim of your post is therefore a little ridiculous but let my try with a parital list of current occupiers - some for having occupied for centuries, many brutal today (arguably) and some having been so brutal in the past that they no longer need to flex muscle:

Canada

United States

Mexico

Brazil

Peru

France (though to be fair Alsace Lorraine had been largely pacified)

Italy

Germany

Poland

Russia

Romania

Hungary

Britain

Indonesia

Pakistan

Sudan

China

Laos

Vietnam

Thailand

The Philippines

The Ukraine

Iran

Turkey

Iraq

Syria

India

Sri Lanka

Japan

Taiwan

so on so forth, until I reach somewhere in the nighbourhood of 198 countries.

[dub]

here comes another war crime apologist:

This post is a great demonstration of your selectivity re: "international law". Your timeline for Israel's "occupation" of other lands implicates it's internationally lawful inception. I guess international alws that work for the Jews just don't work for you.

Responding to the grander claim of your post is therefore a little ridiculous but let my try with a parital list of current occupiers - some for having occupied for centuries, many brutal today (arguably) and some having been so brutal in the past that they no longer need to flex muscle:

Canada

United States

Mexico

Brazil

Peru

France (though to be fair Alsace Lorraine had been largely pacified)

Italy

Germany

Poland

Russia

Romania

Hungary

Britain

Indonesia

Pakistan

Sudan

China

Laos

Vietnam

Thailand

The Philippines

The Ukraine

Iran

Turkey

Iraq

Syria

India

Sri Lanka

Japan

Taiwan

so on so forth, until I reach somewhere in the nighbourhood of 198 countries.

interesting list.

who is japan, iran, iraq, india, taiwan...

there are more from the list, but give me an answer in regards to the above and who they are occupying.

while you're into giving lists, give me a list of people in the world today, under occupiers, who have been living like the palestinians have in the past 50+ years.

[M.Dancer]

here comes another war crime apologist:

interesting list.

who is japan, iran, iraq, india, taiwan...

there are more from the list, but give me an answer in regards to the above and who they are occupying.

while you're into giving lists, give me a list of people in the world today, under occupiers, who have been living like the palestinians have in the past 50+ years.

Keep in mind, most who have lived under an occupation haven't had it as good as the Palestinians.