Speaking truth to power

[Bob]

Check out this channel, it's fantastic. This group wrecks the UN's hypocrisy, specifically the UNHRC.

Here's one of many videos, Richard Kemp briefly explains the IDF's moral conduct during Cast Lead (contrary to the Goldstone report's allegations):

[Jack Weber]

We get it ,Bob...

Israel Uber Alles...

[Bob]

The guy who seems to be the voice of UN Watch is Canadian, too. What a fantastic Canadian. He's obviously Jewish, too.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bob

[Jack Weber]

The guy who seems to be the voice of UN Watch is Canadian, too. What a fantastic Canadian. He's obviously Jewish, too.

When are you moving to Israel,Bob?

Edited June 23, 2010 by Jack Weber

[kimmy]

"Speak truth to power" is one of those phrases that makes me vomit a little in my mouth each time I hear it.

Other than that, I have no comment.

-k

[Jack Weber]

"Speak truth to power" is one of those phrases that makes me vomit a little in my mouth each time I hear it.

Other than that, I have no comment.

-k

Maybe you're sick because of that meat you ate at your club meeting?

[Bob]

"Speak truth to power" is one of those phrases that makes me vomit a little in my mouth each time I hear it.

Other than that, I have no comment.

-k

You'd probably find the videos pretty revealing, as much of the hypocrisy of the UN is put on display in these videos. With respect to the phrase "speaking truth to power", I simply lifted it from a link where I found this channel. I just spend about thirty minutes watching various videos, it's quite revealing.

[bud]

"based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare".

- kemp

i'm sure richard kemp's knowledge and experience from the desks of "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs" totally trumps richard goldstone's professional investigation in gaza where the carnage happened.

point for bob!

[bloodyminded]

Yep. Bland, self-serving statements free of evidence constitute ultimate proof.

[segnosaur]

Check out this channel, it's fantastic. This group wrecks the UN's hypocrisy, specifically the UNHRC.

Here's one of many videos, Richard Kemp briefly explains the IDF's moral conduct during Cast Lead (contrary to the Goldstone report's allegations):

Let me give you some advice...

Avoid using "youtube" and other similar sources (including favorable organizations, and blogs/opinion pieces) to prove your point. Stick to mainstream sources (like national/syndicated newspapers, national/international news services and TV channels, government/university publications, respected international organizations, etc.) I'd also recommend avoiding fox news. And Wikipedia should be used for at most background information. (And if you do happen to see something from a youtube video or blog, try to look up the information in other places.)

Frankly, I find that using youtube videos and blogs to justify someone's position is weak. Let people like naiomiglover use such sources to try to "prove" her sources. All it illustrates is that she can parrot what other people think without bothering to dig into the real facts. Its mindless and shallow. Leave those sorts of things to the friends of Hamas.

The fact is, there is plenty of reputable information out there to justify Israeli actions in its dealing with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. There is enough information out there to debunk Goldstone and point out problems with the UNHRC without ever resorting to a youtube video.

Edited June 23, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

i'm sure richard kemp's knowledge and experience from the desks of "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs" totally trumps richard goldstone's professional investigation in gaza where the carnage happened.

point for bob!

Ummmm... Richard Kemp, who (according to Wikipedia) served 14 tours of duty in the British military, and who fought in 6 different battles/wars over more than 2 decades. Seems to me that he would have at least a little knowledge of military tactics, etc.

Oh, and while you're praising Goldstone, remember that he wasn't in Gaza either when the invasion happened. Furthermore, Goldstone himself admits that at least one of the people he had working on his report (Christine Chinkin) would have been considered biased/ineligible if this had actually been a legal case, because she had signed a letter criticizing Israel even before 1 bit of evidence was collected.

From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618

If it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter she’d signed would have been a ground for disqualification...

[Bob]

Let me give you some advice...

Avoid using "youtube" and other similar sources (including favorable organizations, and blogs/opinion pieces) to prove your point. Stick to mainstream sources (like national/syndicated newspapers, national/international news services and TV channels, government/university publications, respected international organizations, etc.) I'd also recommend avoiding fox news. And Wikipedia should be used for at most background information. (And if you do happen to see something from a youtube video or blog, try to look up the information in other places.)

Frankly, I find that using youtube videos and blogs to justify someone's position is weak. Let people like naiomiglover use such sources to try to "prove" her sources. All it illustrates is that she can parrot what other people think without bothering to dig into the real facts. Its mindless and shallow. Leave those sorts of things to the friends of Hamas.

The fact is, there is plenty of reputable information out there to justify Israeli actions in its dealing with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. There is enough information out there to debunk Goldstone and point out problems with the UNHRC without ever resorting to a youtube video.

I agree 100%! This is different, though. UN Watch's videos are all videos from within the UNHRC meetings. It's informative to see video of what kind of things are happening over in the kangaroo court we know as the UNHRC. You'll rarely, if ever, see me use random YouTube videos or links to Wikipedia pages edited by unemployed leftist morons. Remember, the YouTube channel I'm linking to almost exclusively displays UNHRC talks, it's not some random collage of out-of-context video snippets.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Bob

[bud]

Ummmm... Richard Kemp, who (according to Wikipedia) served 14 tours of duty in the British military, and who fought in 6 different battles/wars over more than 2 decades. Seems to me that he would have at least a little knowledge of military tactics, etc.

goldstone's credentials:

- supreme court judge in south africa where he was dubbed "most trusted man" due to his objective and unbiased work

- chief prosecutor in rwanda

- chief prosecutor in former yugo

- part of the commission of enquiry into the activities of nazism in argentina

he is also a self-described zionist. this and his past work can dispel myths of anti-israel.

this man even re-wrote the UN mandate because because he felt it was too biased against israel.

he went to gaza and did a thorough investigation on many of the allegations made on all sides.

kemp was in the military and has never done any such investigations. there is no point in even trying to compare their credentials and experience.

Oh, and while you're praising Goldstone, remember that he wasn't in Gaza either when the invasion happened.

so what if he wasn't. most investigators are not at the scene of the crime and they usually use investigation and evidence to come to their conclusions.

his conclusion was that both hamas and israel committed war crimes. of course, israel's war crimes were massive as compared to hamas.

[M.Dancer]

kemp was in the military and has never done any such investigations. there is no point in even trying to compare their credentials and experience.

Correct. Kemp is an expert of the rules of engagement and battlefield tactics. That trumps Goldstone who is not an expert of either.

so what if he wasn't. most investigators are not at the scene of the crime and they usually use investigation and evidence to come to their conclusions.

Investigators do not start an investigation with the conclusion already framed. Inquisitors aften do.

[Bob]

Correct. Kemp is an expert of the rules of engagement and battlefield tactics. That trumps Goldstone who is not an expert of either.

Investigators do not start an investigation with the conclusion already framed. Inquisitors aften do.

Most importantly, we know that you cannot conduct an investigation when the evidence is all circumstantial. There's an example in the Goldstone report of the IDF attack a flour factory and then claiming that this is a war crime because a flour factory isn't a legitimate military target. Anyone who's followed this conflict over many years knows that Hamas and other terrorists exclusively operate from civilian structures. Their terrorist infrastructure is entirely mobile. They do not identify themselves with uniforms, nor do they identify their vehicles of infrastructure with markings. So when Goldstone and his team (who already had concluded that Israel was the offending party guilty of war crimes) arrive in Gaza months after Cast Lead to investigate, it is obvious that Hamas and its affiliates already "cleaned house".

None of Goldstone's credentials really matter in light of this flawed "investigation". He can say he's a Zionist all he wants, it doesn't add any credibility to the report.

[Bob]

If you're so inclined, there are other videos on UN Watch's YouTube channel where victims of terrorism from Hamas in the hostilities lead up to Cast Lead directly challenge Goldstone for omitting their stories and suffering. He gives them a non-answer.

Here's an example:

[naomiglover]

Most importantly, we know that you cannot conduct an investigation when the evidence is all circumstantial. There's an example in the Goldstone report of the IDF attack a flour factory and then claiming that this is a war crime because a flour factory isn't a legitimate military target. Anyone who's followed this conflict over many years knows that Hamas and other terrorists exclusively operate from civilian structures.

If I may, Bud, I would like to reply to this; Anyone who repeats the narratives would say such a thing. Israel made many allegations and you are re-spinning the propaganda. For example, Goldstone looked into the allegations by Israel that Hamas used civilians as human shields and came to the conclusion that it was, in fact, the IDF who used Palestinians, including children as human shields.

Your problem is that you take the word of IDF as 100% true, when they have repeatedly been caught lying.

None of Goldstone's credentials really matter in light of this flawed "investigation". He can say he's a Zionist all he wants, it doesn't add any credibility to the report.

How was his investigation flawed? Can you point to the flaws in the methodology of the investigation? I doubt you have even looked at the investigation, just like Dancer. You want your comments to be taken seriously, the least you can do is look at this investigation.

Goldstone Report - Page 6 is where the methodology is described. It's quite extensive and gives you an idea what the standards were. If you want to look away and not acknowledge Goldstone's credibility and the credibility of the investigation, then that's your choice.

[M.Dancer]

How was his investigation flawed?

It has been listed here dozens of times. You weren't able to offer an explanation other than

You're babbling

You haven't read the report

You are predictable and repetitive.

Any one with half a spaniel;s brain can see that the Goldstone inquisition was flawed...but you simply buy into anything that is either anyto j00s or anti israel...

[naomiglover]

It has been listed here dozens of times. You weren't able to offer an explanation other than

Not it wasn't.

You have failed every single time to come through in giving any legitimate list. All you've managed to do is repeat untrue allegations that don't really add up considering the methodology of the report and specific investigations. This, as it has been told to you before, only shows that you don't even know how the report was conducted and are here only to be a mouthpiece for the Hasbara (IDF propaganda machine)

You are predictable and repetitive.

Any one with half a spaniel;s brain can see that the Goldstone inquisition was flawed...but you simply buy into anything that is either anyto j00s or anti israel...

I repeat the truth.

You repeat weightless propaganda that is continuously crushed by the truth.

[segnosaur]

None of Goldstone's credentials really matter in light of this flawed "investigation". He can say he's a Zionist all he wants, it doesn't add any credibility to the report.

How was his investigation flawed?

This has been explained to you multiple times, but you appear to be unable to learn anything. However, for the benefit of anyone who isn't an anti-Israel spam-bot, here's a list of particular problems...

1) Christine Chinkin

Who was Chinkin? She was a member of Goldstone's little investigative team who had criticized Israel even before she had heard one piece of evidence. Even Goldstone admits that had it been an actual court case she would have been dismissed as biased.... (See: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618)

So, why have her on the team? There are 6 billion people on the planet... somewhere there must have been someone who didn't appear like they already had their mind made up. Did she have the ability to do the vulcan mind meld? or something?

In the worst case, he stuck someone on the team who might attempt to direct the team in a biased fashion.

Even in the best case, if the "Men in Black" came down and erased her mind, if god himself came down and removed all her biases, the fact is, it looks incredibly bad. Its like putting Michael Jackson in charge of the Boy Scouts. Given the polarization that exists over the issue of Israel and Palestine, not only should you be unbiased, you should also appear unbiased.

The fact that she was selected for the investigation shows incredibly bad judgement.

2) Robert Bernstien & Peter Hansen

Who is Bernstien you might ask? Well, he was one of the founders of Human Rights Watch. So, you'd think he knows a little about the subject of Human rights and how the organization he helped create and ran for years actually functions. Yet Bernstien has since gone on the record by saying that the organization currently has an anti-Israel bias. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=2&em)

So, why is that important to the Goldstone report? Human Rights watch was one of the organizations contributing to the Goldstone report.

So, you have an organization who's very founder (and the guy who was chair for the organization) thinks is biased, yet they've name is all over the report. Bravo Goldstone. Nice source of input.

And who is Peter Hansen? He was the head of UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. And he stated: "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime.". (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/03/unwra041003.html). In fact, there have been many people working for the UNRWA who have been involved in Terrorist activities. (For example, Alwad al-Qic. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05686115)

Yet the UNRWA was another organization that was involved in the report.

3) Shifa Hospital

In the Goldsone report, it states that "The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital

facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities".

Yet news reporters had no problem finding evidence that Hamas was operating out of Shifa hospital.

For example: From: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/gaza-er/hamas-hiding-in-shifa-hospital/4086/

...Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel. The doctor, who asked not to be named, added that he believes Hamas is aware that they are putting civilians in harm’s way..

So, this little PBS news crew had no problem finding evidence that Hospitals had been used by Hamas. So, why could the Goldstone report not find similar evidence? Were they incompetent? Or did they just not want to find the evidence?

And if they overlooked that information, what else have they overlooked?

Pretending the Goldstone report is "good" while it ignores what could be a significant transgression by Hamas is a little like having a mechanic tell you "your care is in perfect shape" even though it catches fire every time you put the key in the ignition.

------------------------------------------------

So, in short, you have a "fact finding" committee containing people who had the poor judgment to appoint a potentially biased individual to the group (Chinkin), talking to people who may have secretly worked for Hamas (or worked for an organization that is seen by its founder as being biased), and writing a report that contains significant omissions of Palestinian violations.

And you don't have any particular problem with that?