why the selectivity with Hamas and China?

[Rue]

Where are all the nations that condemn Israel for human rights violations when it comes to dealing with China? That I would like to know. During the last several days Stephen Harper raised human rights issues within China on the international stage and all the same countries that condemn Israel for its human rights violations where were they?

For that matter where are the Liberals, NDP and Block Quebecois on this issue? These are the same parties that criticize Harper for being pro-US and right wing but when he actually does something unique and clearly different then US foreign policy and that is to call China out on human rights violations, where is Jack Layton or Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae, etc.?

As for this two-faced hippocracy why should I not be suprised. Hamas fires rockets into Israel and the European Union is completely silent. Israel fires back and kills civilians, and that and only that is

singled out and condemned.

Just yesterday Hamas fired 8 rockets into Israel, specifically into Sderot. Last week someone died from these missiles in Sderot and yesterday someone was seriously injured.

That we hear no one condemning. But we do hear about Palestinian civilians killed or injured when Israel fires back.

I am the first to be fair and criticize Israel and say they need to engage in alternative methods to defend themselves to avoid unecessary civilian casualties. Why is it no one but no one who criticizes Israel, also will be fair and state what Hamas is doing is the cause of this problem and until Hamas is condemned and stopped from firing rockets, this will not end and more Palestinian civilians will be placed in harms way and die?

How is it Hamas finds it so easy to shoot and then use humans as shields?

How has this come about so that now Hamas feels empowered into using Palestinian civilians as shields, it has now turned this into a deliberate tactic and it shoots missiles then surrounds the missile site with

civilians?

Why is no one condemning Hamas for this cynical manipulation of civilians?

Why is it the press does not indicate that Israel has in fact been telephoning Palestinian civilians and warning them they would be shooting back?

Why is it the press is silent when Mohammed Baroud, one of the proponents of shooting missiles into Israel deliberately uses civilian homes to shoot his missiles. What kind of man shoots missiles and then hides behind civilians?

You think it is heroic and principled to shoot missiles at civilians, and then hide behind your own civilians?

What manner of behaviour is this? Is it any wonder Hamas feels they can get away with it when the press will only criticize Israel when they shoot back but remain silent when Hamas uses civilians as shields?

Each time the press and the world remains silent against such behaviour they empower Hamas to continue using humans as shields and unless the world is as loud in condemning Hamas for using civilians as shields and for shooting at civilians-their silence will simply fuel more of these attacks.

What sickens me is Mosques and Palestinian t.v. and radio now openly encourage people to be used as shields to hide and protect Hamas after missile atacks.

What kind of absolute hippocracy is this? Islam forbids the harming of children, women, the elderly, and civilians and yet Mosques and their religious leaders are not only openly calling on Hamas to kill Israeli civilians but now preach to women, children and the elderly that they should use themselves as pawns.

Interestingly Mr. Abbas refuses to condemn Hamas.

So we are down to this now-civilians embolded by the double standard of the Westernm world and fueled by its bias, now openly screaming for the destruction of Israel because the West is too gutless to condemn Hamas just as they have remained silent with China and so many other nations and groups that engage in

terror and human rights violations.

Meanwhile in Lebanon, more and more Lebanese are slowly coming out and criticizing Hezbollah and its tactics and demanding a return to democracy and an end to militias and terrorist groups.

The question is will Palestinians ever find the courage to tell Hamas that there is another way other then violence and screaming out hatred and the destruction of the State of Israel.

What will it take to get the majority of Palestinians who are not being manipulated in this manner to come out and codemn their own people when they do this?

[Higgly]

Rue. How many Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets? How many Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli response to those rockets?

Louise Arbour is not as dumb as George Bush, Rue.

As for the Chinese issue. Most Canadians agree that human rights is a problem in China. They disagree with the way Harper went about it. There have been a number of television programs and newspaper articles highlighting these issues - organ harvesting programs, Tibet, the use of prison slave labour. Maybe you are just not as sensitive to this as you are about Israel.

You might also want to consider the role of the press in this. Take the National Post, for example. Is there a day that goes by when Israel is not on the front page of the National Post (and many other newspapers for that fact)? When you wave something around in front of everybody's noses for that long (we're talking decades here) then guess what? That's what they tend to talk about.

[Cameron]

China is a very secret country. I'm sure there are things we don't know about to this day.

[betsy]

Rue. How many Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets? How many Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli response to those rockets?

Louise Arbour is not as dumb as George Bush, Rue.

So we count heads?

Palestinian rockets kill ten Israelis...then Israeli retaliates, and they are only allowed to kill 10 Palestinians?

I wouldn't say Bush is dumb since he can see through the hypocrisy....but definitely Arbour is biased! And an anti-Semite!

[betsy]

As for the Chinese issue. Most Canadians agree that human rights is a problem in China. They disagree with the way Harper went about it.

If I remember it right, they also disagreed with the way Chretien "cozied" it up with China over Trade...saying Chretien did not push for human rights issue! You never win, either way!

So Harper should just do it his own way!

[jefferiah]

When it comes to acts of war, I have said this before. You can't blame Israel for having a better army. When they retaliate it will be stronger. If a man comes into my house to attack me with a baseball bat, and I have a gun in my hand do you expect me to look at the man and say "Wait a minute. He only has baseball bat, I have a gun. This is not a fair fight. I will go get my bat out of the shed.?

[jefferiah]

If Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to face the wrath of Israel they should stop provoking them, instead of picking petty fights with a strong man and then later crying about how you got beat.

[Higgly]

So we count heads?

Are you saying we shouldn't?

When it comes to acts of war, I have said this before. You can't blame Israel for having a better army.

This is just sophistry. It's not the having, it's the using.

I wouldn't say Bush is dumb since he can see through the hypocrisy....but definitely Arbour is biased! And an anti-Semite!

O here it is. She's an anti-semite! Of course that explains it all. Israel's apologists have used this so much that it has lost meaning and become the modern day equivalent of crying wolf.

Louise Arbour has considerable credibility, is very experienced in the area of war crimes and knowledgable in the field of international law. She went into Gaza and immediately announced publicly that she was seeing 'massive human rights violations'. People like this do not make public pronouncements like that unless they are sure of themselves.

It's about time we had an opinion other than from the likes of Condoleeza Rice about what is going on over there. The next step has got to be charges against Israel in the World Court.

[betsy]

I guess Arbour's idea of a truce is: Palestinians can attack. But Israel should not retaliate.

Quite fair to me.

[bradco]

As a quasi "western" state Israel is held to a higher standard than terrorist groups. Honestly, Im not sure this is a bad thing. If you want to be considered a civilized society you ought to be behaving a hell of alot better than Hamas or Hezbollah. Id be ashamed if we started to compare ourselves (Canada) to terrorist organizations.

Critcisms of Hezbollah and Hamas and other groups like them are implied. Most countries have them officially listed as terrorist groups....uncivilized and immoral behaviour is the norm from them. Just because they dont speak out constantly against them doesnt mean they arent against them. I think having them listed as terrorist organizations speaks volumes.

"Palestinian rockets kill ten Israelis...then Israeli retaliates, and they are only allowed to kill 10 Palestinians?"

I dunno that sounds reasonable to me. Think of it the other way around. If Israeli rockets kill 10 Palestinians how many Israelis do you think Palestinians should be able to kill?

For the record, Human Rights Watch which is the premier human rights organization, is contantly critizing the actions of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

[bradco]

As far as China goes I tend to agree with Ignatieffs comments the other day. You are not going to get China to change their ways by berating them in front of the media. Negotiations behind closed doors is probably the only hope at incrementally improving their human rights. Its unfortunate, but realistic.

[Army Guy]

We as a nation do not apply our standards equally across the board in fact we are very open about it. Why is it we don't condemn or throw the rest of those countries under the micro scope like we do Israel.

Is it because we like thier money, thier Oil, because thier the underdog. Just curious to know why we as a nation can bash the shit of Israel but not the rest of them...

Why is it that alot of Canadians see the hamas or palistinians as the underdog living in squlor conditions and we say aahh them poor bastards, instead of the terrorists that they are...

Is Israel the only nation responsiable for the palestinians plight ?, who will take them in? Are they free apply to live somewhere else ?

[Black Dog]

Do those of you upset with the disproportionate amount of criticism Israel recieves also chafe at the disproportionate amount of military/economic aid and diplomatic support it recieves?

[White Doors]

Do those of you upset with the disproportionate amount of criticism Israel recieves also chafe at the disproportionate amount of military/economic aid and diplomatic support it recieves?

That's why?

If so, how many threads on here do you see bashing Egypt? none eh? go figure.

You better keep looking, harder I might add, for a better reason for your anti-semitism.

Others should too.

[betsy]

We as a nation do not apply our standards equally across the board in fact we are very open about it. Why is it we don't condemn or throw the rest of those countries under the micro scope like we do Israel.

Is it because we like thier money, thier Oil, because thier the underdog. Just curious to know why we as a nation can bash the shit of Israel but not the rest of them...

Why is it that alot of Canadians see the hamas or palistinians as the underdog living in squlor conditions and we say aahh them poor bastards, instead of the terrorists that they are...

Is Israel the only nation responsiable for the palestinians plight ?, who will take them in? Are they free apply to live somewhere else ?

It is quite frightening when you really think about it....the way liberals see things! Frightening, because majority of the people are liberal thinkers...and God only knows what they'll want to do if ever we are seriously threatened right on our doorstep. I guess to them, giving in is a really serious option!

It's like being Alice down the rabbit hole....or the twilight zone.

[theloniusfleabag]

Bah, Hamas, the PLO, etc, and the IDF (and Israeli gov't) are all 'religious fanatic terrorists', really. They both believe that deceit and treachery will be judged by a 'higher court' than our earthly ones, and both think that they will find favour for 'doing God's will'.

I will freely stand up and condemn Hamas, Hizbollah, and any other religious fanatics that targets civilians (or believes that killing in general is even acceptable), for to me, they inspire revulsion. So too, though, must I be critical of Israel.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Do those of you upset with the disproportionate amount of criticism Israel recieves also chafe at the disproportionate amount of military/economic aid and diplomatic support it recieves?

You're right - we should spread the tanks equally between Israel, Syria, Iran.....

[White Doors]

Bah, Hamas, the PLO, etc, and the IDF (and Israeli gov't) are all 'religious fanatic terrorists', really. They both believe that deceit and treachery will be judged by a 'higher court' than our earthly ones, and both think that they will find favour for 'doing God's will'.

I will freely stand up and condemn Hamas, Hizbollah, and any other religious fanatics that targets civilians (or believes that killing in general is even acceptable), for to me, they inspire revulsion. So too, though, must I be critical of Israel.

'Israel' is not a 'religious fanatic'. it is a democratic country.

Only a complete idiot couldn't make the distinction.

[Rue]

Rue. How many Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets? How many Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli response to those rockets?

Louise Arbour is not as dumb as George Bush, Rue.

As for the Chinese issue. Most Canadians agree that human rights is a problem in China. They disagree with the way Harper went about it. There have been a number of television programs and newspaper articles highlighting these issues - organ harvesting programs, Tibet, the use of prison slave labour. Maybe you are just not as sensitive to this as you are about Israel.

You might also want to consider the role of the press in this. Take the National Post, for example. Is there a day that goes by when Israel is not on the front page of the National Post (and many other newspapers for that fact)? When you wave something around in front of everybody's noses for that long (we're talking decades here) then guess what? That's what they tend to talk about.

Higgly you know full well there is a moral issue involved here and you can not justify what Hamas does and remain silent simply because less Israelis die then Palestinians. No Israeli has to die. That is not germaine to the issue. The moment you launch a missile into Israel whether someone actually dies or not makes it an issue. A country has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from missile attacks whether one dies or many die and you know that.

As for Louise Arbour she is in my opinion openly bias against Israel and has demonstrated it in her condemnation of Israeli counter-firing but being completely silent on what Hamas does. That makes her a hippocrate of the worst kind.

I most certainly concede your point that the National Post has an anti-Israel bias but the Globe and Mail and Star are clearly anti-Israel and the Sun is usually pro-Israel although it makes a point of airing ERic Margolis's anti-Israel anti-West arguements so I am not sure what relevance that is.

What I am talking about is the world press and in particular the wire services and in particular Reuters and AP who most newspapers use since they do not rely on first hand reporting.

The wire services have been deliberately selective to the point of making it a joke and making me ask how do people really believe Zionists manipulate the news let alone Hollywood or the banks.

[Black Dog]

hat's why?

If so, how many threads on here do you see bashing Egypt? none eh? go figure.

You better keep looking, harder I might add, for a better reason for your anti-semitism.

Others should too.

Report'd!

I see you and the other fella missed the point. If you want Israel to get special treatment, expect it to recieve a bunch of attention. And maybe if there wasn't a big-time Israel lobby (sorry, Rue, but it exists.) pushing the interests of a certain segment of Israeli society, we'd be seeing a bit more progress.

Wanted: A moderate pro-Israel lobby

I am a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier American pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC plays a vital role in bolstering America's alliance with the Jewish state, from galvanizing Congressional backing for U.S. military and economic aid, to marshaling moral and political support for its right to self-defense. But AIPAC has not always defined "support for Israel" the way many American Jews and Israelis do.

AIPAC claims that it champions the policies of the elected Israeli government, whatever they may be. But it does not faithfully live up to this promise: Over the past 20 years, it has supported right-wing governments in Israel wholeheartedly, while being halfhearted, or worse, about the policies of left-wing administrations. And when Israel is ruled from the right, AIPAC's credo makes supporting Israel synonymous with lining up behind policies which many American Jews - and often the other half or more of the Israeli public - think baneful for Israel's quest for peace and security.

Indeed, AIPAC sometimes tries to be more Israeli than the Israeli government, urging American Jews and their elected representatives in Washington to oppose moderate, responsible positions on Israel, while hewing to the hardest line on the Israeli and American Jewish political spectrum.

[Higgly]

Higgly you know full well there is a moral issue involved here and you can not justify what Hamas does and remain silent simply because less Israelis die then Palestinians. No Israeli has to die. That is not germaine to the issue. The moment you launch a missile into Israel whether someone actually dies or not makes it an issue. A country has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from missile attacks whether one dies or many die and you know that.

Rue, which comes first, the Israeli helicopter gunship attack or the Palestinian rocket reprisal? Can you say for sure? I sure can't. All I know is that Israel never stops the killing, even when there is a lull in the firing of rockets by the Palestinians. Israel has been constantly dealing in death and destruction. Looking back to the numerous cease-fires during the second intifada, it was the same thing. A cease fire would be declared. There would be a cessation in the suicide bombs, and then Israel would start killing again.

As for Louise Arbour she is in my opinion openly bias against Israel and has demonstrated it in her condemnation of Israeli counter-firing but being completely silent on what Hamas does. That makes her a hippocrate of the worst kind.

She was in Israel today saying Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens, or did you miss that?

I most certainly concede your point that the National Post has an anti-Israel bias but the Globe and Mail and Star are clearly anti-Israel and the Sun is usually pro-Israel although it makes a point of airing ERic Margolis's anti-Israel anti-West arguements so I am not sure what relevance that is.

Rue if you think the National Post is anti-Israel, you have not been paying attention.

What I am talking about is the world press and in particular the wire services and in particular Reuters and AP who most newspapers use since they do not rely on first hand reporting.

The wire services have been deliberately selective to the point of making it a joke and making me ask how do people really believe Zionists manipulate the news let alone Hollywood or the banks.

Care to give some examples? I don't agree with you, but perhaps if it is true, you might perhaps consider CNN and Fox 'News' to be a hefty counterweight.

[Argus]

O here it is. She's an anti-semite! Of course that explains it all. Israel's apologists have used this so much that it has lost meaning and become the modern day equivalent of crying wolf.

Arbor's position lends itself to such accusations. Remember that the last UN so-called Human Rights group was disbanded because of its blatant anti-semitism. The new group seems to be heading in the same direction. It's already roundly criticised Israel three times in its short lifespan, but found no reason to criticise, say, Sudan, or China or Uzbekistan - or anyone else.

Simply put, no UN agency has any credibility on the subject of human rights - because the UN is poisoned by the Islamic block, and major power politics.

[Argus]

"Palestinian rockets kill ten Israelis...then Israeli retaliates, and they are only allowed to kill 10 Palestinians?"

I dunno that sounds reasonable to me.

So if the Taliban kill two Canadians - we're not allowed to kill more than 2 of them in response?

And do bear in mind there are about 20 or 30 times as many Arabs as Jews. I don't think the Israelis can afford to trade casualties on a one on one basis.

[White Doors]

hat's why?

If so, how many threads on here do you see bashing Egypt? none eh? go figure.

You better keep looking, harder I might add, for a better reason for your anti-semitism.

Others should too.

Report'd!

I see you and the other fella missed the point. If you want Israel to get special treatment, expect it to recieve a bunch of attention. And maybe if there wasn't a big-time Israel lobby (sorry, Rue, but it exists.) pushing the interests of a certain segment of Israeli society, we'd be seeing a bit more progress.

Wanted: A moderate pro-Israel lobby

I am a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier American pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC plays a vital role in bolstering America's alliance with the Jewish state, from galvanizing Congressional backing for U.S. military and economic aid, to marshaling moral and political support for its right to self-defense. But AIPAC has not always defined "support for Israel" the way many American Jews and Israelis do.

AIPAC claims that it champions the policies of the elected Israeli government, whatever they may be. But it does not faithfully live up to this promise: Over the past 20 years, it has supported right-wing governments in Israel wholeheartedly, while being halfhearted, or worse, about the policies of left-wing administrations. And when Israel is ruled from the right, AIPAC's credo makes supporting Israel synonymous with lining up behind policies which many American Jews - and often the other half or more of the Israeli public - think baneful for Israel's quest for peace and security.

Indeed, AIPAC sometimes tries to be more Israeli than the Israeli government, urging American Jews and their elected representatives in Washington to oppose moderate, responsible positions on Israel, while hewing to the hardest line on the Israeli and American Jewish political spectrum.

haha

Reported for what exactly?

haha

Anyways, I am not asking for special treatment for Israel. In fact, I am sick of the 'special treatment' that it already gets from the UN and the media. Think the UN human rights commission they had in Darfur. Think Reuter's photoshopped pictures during the Israel Lebanon war. No, I'm not asking for special treatment for Israel, in fact I am asking for the 'special treatment' to stop.

[Higgly]

Arbor's position lends itself to such accusations. Remember that the last UN so-called Human Rights group was disbanded because of its blatant anti-semitism. The new group seems to be heading in the same direction. It's already roundly criticised Israel three times in its short lifespan, but found no reason to criticise, say, Sudan, or China or Uzbekistan - or anyone else.

If Arbour had anti-semitic tendencies, we would have heard about them from B'Nai Brith et al when she was appointed a Canadian Supreme Court justice. The woman didn't just suddenly become an anti-semite over-night. This tactic from the pro-Israel lobby is getting pretty old.