HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » Israel sees Palestinian c...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:21 PM

Israel sees Palestinian children as 'potential terrorists', panel finds

<snip>

"ISRAEL'S practice of holding Palestinian children in solitary confinement and its use of physical violence and coerced confessions in interrogations is again in the spotlight following the release of a report from a group of eminent British lawyers.

They found ''undisputed'' evidence that Israel was violating international law in at least six areas - in particular denying children access to a lawyer, separating them from their parents, discriminatory treatment in the legal process and the use of shackles.

Operating on the belief that every Palestinian child is a ''potential terrorist'', Israel's military court system was forcing children into a ''spiral of injustice'', the report, Children in Military Custody, said.

Its findings echo those of the human rights group Defence of Children International (DCI), which has documented hundreds of cases of children held in Israeli detention without being informed of their rights, many in solitary confinement."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-sees-palestinian-children-as-potential-terrorists-panel-finds-20120627-2136g.html#ixzz1z2DbJyk3


Israel 'breaching UN convention on children's rights'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18608900

A UK government-backed report has accused Israel's security forces of regularly breaching the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

65 replies, 6190 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply Israel sees Palestinian children as 'potential terrorists', panel finds (Original post)
Scurrilous Jun 2012 OP
PDJane Jun 2012 #1
bemildred Jun 2012 #2
azurnoir Jun 2012 #3
Mosby Jun 2012 #4
shaayecanaan Jun 2012 #5
bemildred Jun 2012 #6
azurnoir Jun 2012 #8
shaayecanaan Jun 2012 #10
azurnoir Jun 2012 #11
shira Jun 2012 #7
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #12
shira Jun 2012 #13
azurnoir Jun 2012 #14
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #16
shira Jul 2012 #17
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #18
shira Jul 2012 #19
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #20
shira Jul 2012 #21
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #22
shira Jul 2012 #23
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #24
shaayecanaan Jul 2012 #25
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #30
shira Jul 2012 #40
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #43
shira Jul 2012 #44
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #45
shira Jul 2012 #48
shira Jul 2012 #26
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #29
shira Jul 2012 #31
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #33
shira Jul 2012 #34
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #35
shira Jul 2012 #36
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #37
shira Jul 2012 #38
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #41
shira Jul 2012 #42
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #46
shira Jul 2012 #47
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #50
oberliner Jul 2012 #51
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #53
shira Jul 2012 #52
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #54
shira Jul 2012 #55
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #56
shira Jul 2012 #58
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #62
shira Jul 2012 #63
bemildred Jul 2012 #32
azurnoir Jul 2012 #27
shira Jul 2012 #39
azurnoir Jul 2012 #49
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #57
azurnoir Jul 2012 #61
shira Jul 2012 #59
azurnoir Jul 2012 #60
shira Jul 2012 #64
azurnoir Jul 2012 #65
azurnoir Jun 2012 #9
JohnyCanuck Jun 2012 #15
azurnoir Jul 2012 #28

Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:27 PM

1. The name of the accusers changes, but Israel continues to break international law.

They've been doing so since their inception, and the occupation is brutal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:37 PM

2. Maybe it has something to do with the lack of prospects for those children to get on in tbe world.

if you want to stop terrorism, offer them good jobs instead, good jobs are the best terror-fighting tool ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:38 PM

3. Not a surprise at all

in fact I've seen that opinion here on DU too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:41 PM

4. I wonder how juvenile offenders are treated in GB

In the US juveniles accused of a crime are routinely handcuffed, strip searched and held for a time without contact from anyone. Depending on other factors they could be isolated for weeks. They don't have a specific right to a lawyer but the parents do.

For kids in the system who were adjudicated delinquent (meaning they are now in the state system) they are transported off site with handcuffs, leg shackles and belly chain, this is SOP. They may also be strip searched twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:29 PM

5. That is surprising...

In most Australian states, a juvenile (anyone under the age of seventeen) cannot be dealt with in an adult court. Usually they are only remanded for very serious offences. The Juvenile Justice Act in the state that I live (Qld) states that detention for any juvenile is considered a last resort.

Juveniles are also entitled to legal aid as of right for any criminal proceeding. Any conviction on their juvenile record will also be wiped once they turn the age of seventeen.

Unless there are specific reasons for doing so it would be very unusual for a juvenile to appear in court handcuffed, even if they are on remand. It would be considered scandalous if they were shackled in the way in which you describe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:04 PM

6. I can tell you that in the USA juveniles are treated like fresh meat.

Wasn't always that way, but it sure as hell is now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:50 AM

8. especially since the privatization of dentention facilities n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 11:31 PM

10. There was an interesting tidbit on QI last night...

(you know, the quiz panel show with Stephen Fry as host, download it or something)

well worth a watch:-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:39 AM

11. Thanks I did not know about how far the prison labor had went

I knew about the military stuff but not consumer goods

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:26 AM

7. Richard Millett: Save the children…except when they’re Israeli.

I was back at Parliament last night for the launch of a joint report by Save The Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians called Falling Behind – The Effect Of The Blockade On Child Health in Gaza.

The same day a report was released called Children in Military Custody. This may explain why there were only 20 people at my meeting.

It must have been a good day to release bad news about Israel. With politicians, NGOs and charities totally impotent to stop massacres in Syria and starvation and disease in Africa they got back to doing what they do best; delegitimising Israel.

<snip>

Children in Military Custody also relies heavily on a recent report on exactly the same subject matter by Defence for Children International – Palestine Section called Bound, Blindfolded & Convicted: Children held in military detention.

How many reports on exactly the same subject do we need? Obviously there is no austerity in some NGOs and government departments (Children in Military Custody was funded by the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

The main problem with Bound, Blindfolded & Convicted is that all the testimony was taken anonymously.

Similarly, Children in Military Custody adopted the ‘Chatham House principle’ of not attributing quotes to individuals, again making it impossible to test the evidence.


Meanwhile, the Israeli Embassy in London responded to Children in Military Custody by noting that Palestinians under the age of 18 were encouraged by school textbooks and television programmes to glorify terrorism. As a result they were often involved in lethal acts which presented the Israeli authorities with serious challenges.


http://cifwatch.com/2012/06/27/richard-millett-save-the-childrenexcept-when-theyre-israeli/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:09 AM

12. I'm sorry, I stop reading articles when they do shit like this;

It must have been a good day to release bad news about Israel. With politicians, NGOs and charities totally impotent to stop massacres in Syria and starvation and disease in Africa they got back to doing what they do best; delegitimising Israel.


See what he did there, in my bold? That's a diversion. In fact the article is full of them, but seeing one so early on just tells me that whatever follows isn't going to be worth reading. It's the journalism version of the Chewbacca defense;



And then he follows up by saying this;

I haven’t had a chance to read Children in Military Custody except to note that it starts off by stating:

His entire article is about a report he states he has not read?

C'mon Shira. You might as well be citing Ann Coulter or something here. I'm sure you have stronger sources to make your argument for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 08:19 AM

13. The whole report is diversionary and politically loaded. That's the point of bringing up ...

...the fraudulent and sanctimonious efforts of politicians, ngo's, and some charities.

Personally, I stop reading anti-Israel reports once their phony agendas are revealed.

As to the author not reading the report, so what? All the author really needed to know is that it was based primarily on contrived politically compromised work that couldn't be verified. Typical par for the course, same old song and dance that can be safely ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:04 AM

14. yep sort of like CNN and Fox News not thinking they had to read

all 4 pages of the SCOTUS decision on healthcare, I'll go with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:59 PM

16. Oh, okay. Why bother with information, when you can "just know"

Go with the gut, right?

Tell me Shira, and tell me true. Is Amnesty International supposed to take arms against the Assad regime? Because that's what the person who is providing your argument is saying. How DARE those charities and NGO's not be HALTING SYRIA!? How DARE they not have cured AIDS in the C.A.R.!? Until they solve every other problem the author demands, they will NEVER be able to report on how Israel abuses its prisoners!

I dismissed your article because the guy in it is showing excessively bad logic, using diversionary arguments ("GASP! They didn't talk about how evil Hamas was, or Iran, in their report about Israeli prisons!") and he admittedly says he has no idea what is actually IN the fucking report.

You - and the guy who you're using to provide 100% of "your" opinion - are dismissing the report because it might say something less-than-fawning about Israel.

If you actually gave a shit about Israel - which like most "pro-Israeli" Americans, I'm certain you absolutely do not - I would think you would be concerned about that beloved country's treatment of prisoners. But, proving my point, you clearly do not. Not even enough to take a look at a possibly relevant report. Instead you read some Michelle Malkin knockoff article, and go no further.

It reminds me of how right-wingers will scream and kick and rage about how things are "Anti-American" or "Blame America First!" - without ever considering fact. They just see something critical and immediately start howling. it's dumb as hell when they do it, and you don't make it look any smarter, I'm afraid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 06:41 PM

17. Yes, I do know that w/o question, and only the deliberately blind would deny it, there's an obvious

....delegitimization and demonization campaign going on by major NGO's against Israel. It's why I basically ignore anything they claim. I don't trust them one bit when it comes to anything related to the Israel/Arab conflict.

The best proof of their irrational hostility vs. Israel is the discredited Goldstone Report. Its main conclusion was retracted by none other than Richard Goldstone himself. The Report is yet another in a long line of UNHRC multi-million dollar efforts now in the dustbin of history.

Goldstone's charges are lifted entirely from NGO's like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. THEY led him to conclude in his now discredited report that Israel targeted civilians as a matter of policy. Once Goldstone retracted, that rendered all THEIR work as crap. They clumsily tried to cover their tracks...

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?operation=print&id=3353
http://www.volokh.com/2011/04/06/human-rights-watch-lies-re-goldstone-retraction/

Only the willfully blind would consider Amnesty and HRW credible WRT Israel. Like I wrote before in my previous post, these are entirely political attacks vs. Israel. No one should take them seriously.

======

Now WRT this report about children in military custody, Richard Millett was correct to stop reading once he saw that these "lawyers" weren't challenging the "illegality" of Israel's settlements. FTR, Israel's settlements are not illegal. An unwise move? Wrong? Mean spirited? Zealoted? Believe what you wish, but they're not illegal. A group of lawyers should know that. There's no point reading any further as this latest attack on Israel is entirely political and definitely not based on International Law...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 07:51 PM

18. So given the obvious agenda of you and your sources, what makes you the least bit trustworthy?

Especially given that your post is so chock full of appeal to ridicule fallacies.

Also, you state that with regard to Israel, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are completely without credibility; are you saying that they are credible in other areas?

Really?

Are you certain that their criticisms of Syria aren't just part of an agenda of demonization and delegimization against Syria, Shira? I mean it's so obvious. You'd have to be willfully blind to not see how much Amnesty has a huge hard-on for talking shit about Syria. It's practically pathological, and a clear sign of the inherent anti-Arab sentiment not just of these NGO's, but also every other nation in the world.

Clearly, when Amnesty talks about human rights violations in China, they're just lashing out as a bunch of sinophobes, trying hard to empower China's enemies at the expense of the peace-loving Chinese people. All criticism against China is purely political, and no one should take them seriously. You shouldn't trust them one bit when it comes to anything related to China.

And how about those assholes in the ACLU, Shira? These anti-American wastes of meat, always talking about "voter suppression" and "rights violations" and "civil liberties in question." They just hate America so much that everything htye say is suspect. you'd have to be seriously delusional to ever believe ANYTHING said by them about the United States. There are absolutely no problems like that in America, it's all legal, and a group of lawyers should know that. You're out of your mind if you can take the ACLU seriously, and doing so is a clear sign of antiamericanism.

...See how this works? I could probably just go down the list, but there's roughly 300 nations in the world (don't talk about "legitimacy" unless you want to hear about Transdniestria, by the way) and I just don't have time. I'm sure for each of them, some group or other is pointing out what they're doing wrong, and in every case, someone can holler "YOU JUST HATE US COMPLETELY IRRATIONALLY!" and in lots of cases, they do (for instance, Israel and the three I included here). And in each case, those same countries will accept without much, if any question, the same organizations' statements of wrongdoing at the hands of other nations or groups.

(By the way, ngo-monitor set off just about every anti-spyware program I have. You might want to scan your machine, I dunno if mine are just being weird, or if there's something actually there)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 08:14 PM

19. My credibility isn't the issue. Did you read both links? Especially the 2nd one (not NGO-M)?

The subject is how these NGO's report on Israel. That's what I'm writing about now. Not Syria, China, etc.

The Goldstone Report was gi-normous news. The UN backed it. It relied almost entirely on HRW and Amnesty reports and accusations. Richard Goldstone then retracted the conclusion (which nuked the report so badly no one talks about it now). Rather than debate Goldstone or question his reversal, HRW and Amnesty backtracked. And they were really clumsy about it.

You don't see it that way, right?

Why?

ps
Are you aware that HRW's founder, Robert Bernstein, has condemned HRW for its anti-Israel hostility? What do you make of that? Here's more on HRW's bias, that they admit...
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/for_hrw_israel_is_low_hanging_fruit_the_new_republic_adds_evidence_of_bias

Great old thread here about Amnesty's admitted bias vs. Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x175318#175339

It's not about human rights. This is political, as I wrote earlier. These NGO's have no credibility when it comes to Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #19)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:12 PM

20. I read the second

Like I said, ngo-watch made things go wacky.

Do you know WHY the Goldstone report relied heavily on NGO reports? Because Israel flat refused to provide any information for it. Their position was that they would provide an "internal investigation" and release their own findings. I'll admit my own doubts here; I don't trust the local police department to investigate themselves, why would I trust a damned military to do so? Regardless, he had been commissioned to create this report, and so he did, with the information he could gather. Israel, choosing to not divulge a scrap of its own information, really, truly, honestly has no place to whine about the results.

But goodness gracious did they whine. Even before any findings were reported, Goldstone was suddenly a raving Israel-hating antisemite lying motherfucker and the absolute worst human being on the entire planet. He was accused of "collaborating with terrorists." There were death threats against Goldstone, for the first time since 1990, when his investigation into apartheid won him death threats from White Afrikaaner separatists (kind of ironic, that)

In fact for daring to accept the UN's assignment for him, he was nearly barred from attending his grandson's Bar Mitzvah by the South African Zionist Federation. Such class, those Team Israel folks.

Even with that pressure on him, he did not retract his report. He said that if he had had the information which Israel later released, the report would have been different. Well... Duh? He also commended Israel for at least investigating, unlike Hamas, which did jack squat. It's not exactly the massive capitulation you're presenting it as.

Which is why your source links to one of its own articles that keeps right up with the attacks even after supposedly getting what it wanted.

Now, the funny thing is... Israel's own report confirms many of the situations reported by Goldstone;
http://www.hybridstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/GazaUpdateJuly2010.pdf

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Gaza_Operation_Investigations_Second_Update_July_2010.htm (Second source, since I'm sure you probably won't take hybridstates as "credible.")

Whether or not these are war crimes would be up to an impartial jury, I would think. But you and I know that's just not going to fucking happen, unless I guess we get some random villagers from the hills of Laos to review evidence and reach a conclusion (which... honestly sounds like it might work ) Goldstone's initial position that they did qualify as war crimes is perhaps due to, you know, Israel flat out refusing to participate in the investigation and thus denying Goldstone some necessary information and perhaps convincing arguments. It's clear that choosing to do so would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

So to recap.

Team Israel - and you are very much included in this group, Shira - responded to the idea of investigating human rights violations on OCL with threats to murder a man, antisemitic attacks, harassment of this man's family, dehumanization of him and his colleagues and sources, a campaign of lies and mis-characterization designed to try to wreck his illustrious and admired career and achievements, a political campaign to bar him from his religious observances, all while Israel was refusing to provide a scrap of information to him that would have, evidently, resulted in a somewhat different report that cast Israel in a better light.

All to the end effect of basically being able to say "Look! Israel is better than Hamas!" which is a really low bar to set for yourself, if you ask me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 07:53 AM

21. The NGO's that fed Goldstone the central argument & conclusion of his report....

....were wrong, weren't they? Mainly that Israel was "guilty" of targeting civilians as a matter of policy. THAT is what the whole report is about. It's what all those NGO reports were about. It wasn't about Israel doing a good job (better than NATO, the US, the UK, etc..) but they could still do better.

If Goldstone was wrong about that, so were the NGO's like HRW and Amnesty.

So, were HRW and Amnesty wrong too? If so, why don't THEY say the same thing as Goldstone; admit they didn't have access to all the facts; admit they were wrong?

My argument is they're very hostile vs. Israel and have zero credibility when they make their sanctimonious condemnations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 02:54 PM

22. I know what your argument is, Shira

First, we have to unravel the tangled mess you're presenting as the basis of your argument. You're sort of jumping all over the place with it, which is a clear sign of someone who's just parroting clusters of talking points given to them by someone else. Your opinion of the two NGO's you're going on about is based on the following;

1) You believe that Amnesty, International and Human rights Watch were the sole sources behind the UN Fact-Finding mission to the Gaza Strip.
2) You believe that Amnesty and HRW thus "fed" Richard Goldstone, Christine Chinkin, Hina Jilani, and Desmond Travers pre-fabricated conclusions.
3) You believe that all the findings and conclusions of the Mission are anti-Israel; that this is what the entire report is "all about."
4) You believe Richard Goldstone said that he was wrong and retracted the report.

From this you conclude that these two organizations are "very hostile" towards Israel, and have "zero credibility."

But here's the facts;

1) Amnesty and HRW were two of Thirty-seven NGO's involved in the fact-finding mission. Also included were twelve diplomatic missions, twenty-one UN and International organizations, four Palestinian domestic authorities, independent investigation, individual testimonies, and two fact-finding trips to Gaza. The Mission also tried to bring the Israelis in to get their input and information, but were rebuffed.

2) Nobody "fed" the four people on the mission anything. There are twenty-five pages worth of conclusions about the situation, pertaining to Israel, Palestine, Hamas, the International community, lots of stuff. Most of the three months of forming the report were consumed by fact-checking, cross-reference, and verification. The result is about as close to a scientific tratise as you're likely to get out of the situation.

3) The report is not "anti-Israel." it reports wrongdoings by the Israeli military, and it also reports wrongdoings by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Though perhaps not by your absolutist standards, it is quite strongly supportive of many of Israel's positions about the war, particularly the claim that it was justified by Hamas' rocket attacks from Gaza. The only way to interpret the report as "anti-Israel" is if you're already of the mindset that Israel can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise "hates Israel."

4) Goldstone has never said "I was wrong," much less tried to retract the mission's report; nor have his three colleagues. In fact to retract it, they would need all four of them to file a complaint asking for it to be retracted from the UN. He has written a WaPo editorial where he says the document would have been different had Israel participated in the fact-finding. As I have pointed out, Israel's government has actually confirmed much of the report's findings; In his WaPo editorial, Goldstone offers little more than the benefit of the doubt in regards to the Israeli government's "fog of war" arguments in their own report. As I pointed out, this is after such charming tactics as death threats, harassment of his family, antisemitism targeting him, and so many other fun, lovely intimidation tactics intended to make him "back down."

The findings were not wrong. The report is not some Israel-hating screed. HRW and Amnesty had a minor place among the many sources referenced and cross-examined in the fact-finding process. Goldstone never retracted, and was the subject of antisemitic attacks by the Team Israel.

I suppose you have your opinion and I'm not very likely to sway it. But I wanted you to know that your "argument" is based off bullshit. At the very least you could thumb through the report yourself, instead of taking MEMRI and CAMERA and Ynet and other oh-so-very objective websites at their word.

Another thing you ought to know; Volokh is sourcing justjournalism. This is a pro-Israel news / lobby group that was based in the UK until it went flat-side-up last year (which is why his link to them takes you to a defunct wordpress login) The board of advisers of Just Journalism were a pretty interesting bunch;
- Denis MacShane, a British MP who rather famously embezzled £125,000 for his garage.
- Robin Shepherd, a frequent contributor to right-wing "think tanks" and owner / publisher of the rightwing "news" site, "The Commentator"
- Douglas Murray, author of "Neoconservativism; Why We Need it"
- Daniel Johnson, editor of the right-wing (and often islamophbic) magazine "Standpoint."
- Alan Johnson, who has urged the UK to abandon its treaties on human rights.
- Nina Rosenwald, whose name just keeps cropping up as a donor and participant in anti-Muslim "strategy" organizations.

I'm sure you were unaware that you were sourcing right-wing garbage, of course. Just thought you might like to know anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:15 PM

23. No you don't.

Goldstone repudiated the report's central premise. Do you know what it was? I don't think you wish to admit it but here it is:

Every incident raised in that report by Goldstone's team was used in order to make a case that proved the IDF very deliberately - and as a matter of policy - targeted innocent Gazan civilians. That wasn't some minor aspect of the report. It was the main theme throughout the report and its final conclusion.

THAT is what animated all the sanctimonious bigots worldwide who had a field day with what can only be described as a modern day blood libel. They finally had all the proof they needed to demonstrate Israel's malicious intent and to expose the IDF Zionazis for who they were.

It was that exact charge that enraged most of the Jewish world, including some very prominent liberal Jews and organizations - and not just the rightwing...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x295131#295179

Note what those people are upset about. They're upset about Goldstone's claim that Israel targeted, killed, and set out to punish the Gazan population deliberately.

HRW and Amnesty were the main sources for Goldstone's report, not the only ones. Team Goldstone used every one of those 37 NGO's in order to make the case that Israel killed civilians deliberately. Nearly all 37 of those NGO's (with the exception of B'tselem and maybe a few others) make the same false accusation Goldstone repudiated. The one accusation you will find from almost every one of those 37 NGO's is that Israel deliberately massacred civilians or they intentionally targeted/punished innocent Palestinians.

Goldstone repudiated the report's central premise and main conclusion. That central premise and main conclusion can easily be found in nearly every single report on OCL from those 37 NGO's. They went absolutely nuts reporting on Israel's intended malice towards the Palestinian people. NOW, those NGO's (but especially HRW and Amnesty) are in no way challenging Goldstone's retraction. Instead, they are switching the goalposts. They are denying they implied any such thing. They are claiming they never endorsed the report's central theme or main conclusion (even though they never once spoke out against it). Not only do their reports expose their fraud, there was never any indication they had a problem with Goldstone's findings (as though he went too far with his claims). Of course they didn't have a problem and never publicized it! Because that's what THEY alleged as well!

HRW and Amnesty will never admit they falsely charged Israel. They have no credibility.

And the proof? Well that's simple. No one mentions the Goldstone Report anymore at the UN. HRW and Amnesty are done with it. They know the entire report is now shit, even if you can't admit it. That report is in the dustbin of history where it will remain. And it was based primarily on false NGO reports; HRW and Amnesty included.

You want to know why it won't ever be brought up again? It's because Goldstone's retraction invalidated the entire report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 06:10 PM

24. Yeah, I do; you're not very subtle

Every incident in the report, you say? And its "final conclusion?" Which final conclusion would that be? Like I said, there's twenty-five pages of conclusions. See, right there, I can tell you really don't know what you're talking about, Shira. I've got the report right here; http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm - and while I admit I haven't plowed through all five-hundred and seventy-five pages of material, I've seen plenty in there condemning Hamas and the Palestinian authorities. Since you've never read any of it (you don't need to after all, you just know, right?) I'm not surprised you persist in arguing otherwise.

As I have pointed out, Israel has confirmed many of the findings of the Gaza report, Shira. For example, Israel did in fact target and mortar a school. For example, Israel did fire missiles into a mosque. For example, Israel did target the Gaza police forces. For example, Israeli forces did shell a UNWRA field office compound. For example, Israeli soldiers did shoot and kill civilians bearing white flags. For example, Israel did use indiscriminate weapons such as flechettes and white phosphorus in civilian areas. For example, Israel did bulldoze a chicken farm. For example, Israel did target a cement factory with air strikes. For example, Israel did destroy the Al-Wadiya Grou's factories (which apparently made "snacks," according to the Israeli report.) For example, the Israelis fired tank shells into a flour factory, destroying it. For example, Israel admits a hell of a lot of houses were destroyed.

Do you think that the IDF is so inept that it just accidentally fired three missiles into a mosque? Was the Benny Hill theme playing when they mortared the school? I think it would have been appropriate music for the chicken farm thing, at least. These were deliberate actions by the IDF; it's either that or you think the Israeli military is run by Jerome Horwitz (Whoooo woop woop woop!) The Israelis admit it was deliberate; the contention is whether it was justified by military necessity. Israel says yes, the UN says no.

All 37 of those NGO's "make the same claim"? Shira... until two posts ago, you didn't even fucking know there were more than two NGO's involved, so don't pretend you have any clue about the other 35. And why the hatred for just them? Where's your hatred for the 21 UN and international organizations, like the World Health Organization? Where's your bile directed to the British UN ambassador in Geneva? Does your salivating rage extend towards B'Tselem and Yesh Gvul and the Mandela Institute?

Now, like I said, I don't expect your opinion to change. I just needed to inform you that your argument is bunk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 08:32 PM

25. An excellent post

Unfortunately, just like other excellent posts on this forum it is destined to disappear into oblivion under a hail of cut-and-post boilerplate posts culled from right-wing blogs. You'll soon get tired of making comprehensive and considered responses, we all do. I think they call it a "fatigue strategy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:19 AM

30. Why does the sourcing of right-wing garbage "stick" here, anyway?

On the rest of DU, that's a sweepstakes ticket for a long voyage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #30)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:26 AM

40. I ask myself that all the time. Why do people constantly quote from Hamas approved media here?

Right/Left simply aren't useful terms anymore, especially WRT then I/P conflict.

For example, almost always and w/o question I see that "pro-Palestinian" in reality means anti-Israel, and in some cases pro-Hamas or pro-PLO. Those who say they're "pro-Palestinian", from left-wingers to right-wingers, really don't give a rat's ass about Palestinians anymore than they do the millions slaughtered in Sudan, the Congo, Syria, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #40)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:08 PM

43. Shira, as I cover below...

When you say "Hamas Approved media," it very clearly means absolutely any media that does not provide the story you want to hear. Even, it seems, an official report from the government of Israel. And they clearly haven't supported Hamas since at least 1987!

And yeah, actually, left / right still applies. When your source traces back to a neoconservative think tank, you are citing a right-wing source.

Your second comment is interesting. Do you believe that the condition of the Palestinians is comparable to the three examples you give, Shira?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:17 PM

44. You didn't cover anything below.

And I really don't think you understand the difference b/w right and left when it comes to the Arab/Israel conflict.

For example, you probably support the following:

Free Gaza Movement
International Solidarity Movement
Palestine Solidarity Movement
BDS
Israel Apartheid Week
Global March to Jerusalem

Right or wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #44)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:14 AM

45. I think you're the one not understanding

When you link to a site espousing neoconservative twaddle, you're citing a right-wing source. Now, perhaps whatever point you're trying to provide is valid, or at least interesting. But if that's the case, then very possibly you can get it from a source that doesn't lean back and bitch about "the left" at every turn. Seriously, it's DU, just because they let people like me and you into the party doesn't mean there aren't any standards

I've actually never heard of any of those, that I can recall. I've probably seen the names somewhere, but I'm unfamiliar. I'll look into them and get back to you.

Just on the basis of the names though, I'm guessing it's going to be a Judean Peoples Front / People's Front of Judea / Front for the People of Judea farce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:14 AM

48. There's a difference b/w rightwing sources, liberal ones, and hard left ones....

The "Left" that you see being bashed by supporters of Israel is hostile not only to rightwingers or neocons, but also liberals. It's this Stalinist "Left" (not all the left as there's a very decent left too) that lumps both right-wingers and liberals together.

This Stalinist Left is nearly indistinguishable from the Fascist Right. Both are sympathetic to totalitarian movements. Both hate liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:19 PM

26. Sigh. Here are some true/false questions you can either choose to answer or choose to evade....

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)

If you'd like, I'll answer your true/false questions in return. But you first. You have two choices when responding. True or False.

================

From HRW reports...

“Human Rights Watch’s investigation into the fighting in Gaza concluded that Israeli forces were responsible for serious violations of the laws of war, including the use of heavy artillery and white phosphorus munitions in densely populated areas, the apparent targeting of people trying to convey their civilian status…”

“The 575-page report, released on September 15, 2009, documented serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israel, with some incidents amounting to war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, including willful killings.”

“Between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009, Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza killed several hundred Palestinian civilians and wounded many more, some during Israeli attacks that were indiscriminate, disproportionate or at times seemingly deliberate, in violation of the laws of war.”

“Human Rights Watch documented 53 civilian deaths in 19 incidents in which Israeli forces appeared to have violated the laws of war. Six of these incidents involved the unlawful use of white phosphorus munitions; six were attacks by drone-launched missiles that killed civilians; and seven involved soldiers shooting civilians who were in groups holding white flags.”


Are those statements from HRW reports True or False? You have 2 choices, pick one please.

====================================

From the head (Executive Director) of HRW, Ken Roth...

Second, it is wrong to suggest that Israel is being held to higher standards in Gaza than those to which American and European forces have been held in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan: if the laws of war are violated those forces are exposed by NGOs and the UN. There has been no evidence in those conflicts of a deliberate infliction of suffering on civilians by American or European forces, as there was in Gaza by Israeli forces.


Roth's statement: True or False?

If you're not sure, I remind you that Ken Roth wrote in response to Goldstone...

Goldstone backed away from a particularly controversial charge in the report – one that Human Rights Watch, for example, never made.


HRW never made such a claim? Really?

Roth claims HRW never charged that Israel targeted civilians as a matter of policy. But you see the quotes above. Granted, they didn't use Goldstone's exact words, but let's not play semantic games. HRW did make that very charge. There's no indication whatsoever from HRW they were reporting only about some rogue IDF soldiers or units, but rather Israel (its policy).

Roth lied in response to Goldstone's retraction: True or False?

Here's more from Roth from 2009, showing he lied:

"Israel's view that one prevails in asymmetric warfare by pummeling rather than protecting civilians is not only illegal but also counterproductive."

Israel could have conducted the war by targeting only combatants and taking all feasible precautions to spare civilians, as required by international humanitarian law. That is mandated even though Hamas often violated these rules, because violations by one side do not justify violations by the other.

Instead, as Human Rights Watch has shown through detailed, on-the-ground investigations, Israeli forces fired white phosphorous munitions indiscriminately over civilian areas, shot and killed Palestinian civilians waving white flags, attacked children playing on rooftops with precision missiles fired from aerial drones and needlessly destroyed civilian property.

there is strong evidence that Israel wanted Gazan civilians to pay the price for Hamas’s abuses, and that the decision to impose that cost was taken not by junior officers in the field but by senior government officials.”


If those statements from Roth do not refer to Israeli policy, then what does? You don't have to answer b/c it's not true or false. But the fact is, he lied. Ken Roth, tried to cover his ass rather than admit that he and HRW were wrong. His very own contradictory statements prove he lied.

True or False?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:59 AM

29. You don't have to be so hostile; just give me a sly come-hither look!

the apparent targeting of people trying to convey their civilian status…”

Such as the civilian men that were carrying a white flag that Israel's report admits were fired upon? If both reports say "this happened" then I'm pretty inclined to say that that happened.

some during Israeli attacks that were indiscriminate, disproportionate or at times seemingly deliberate, in violation of the laws of war.”

Israel admits to using indiscriminate weapons - flechette and WP munitions - and admits wrongdoing in using them too close to civilian areas, and has launched inquiries into who's responsible for that and what's to be done about it. Israel's report also admits the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and buildings, Shira - that chicken farm, for instance, or the snack factory. Israel qualifies this by arguing that they did so legally, out of military necessity.

in which Israeli forces appeared to have violated the laws of war.

Forgive the "evasive" answer, but you do know the difference between the phrase "appear to have" and "absolutely did," don't you?

six were attacks by drone-launched missiles that killed civilians; and seven involved soldiers shooting civilians who were in groups holding white flags.”

Like I said, Israel has confirmed at least one incident of shooting said flag-bearers. Its report only talks about one incident and doesn't verify or deny another five (the Israeli report admits to not delivering comprehensive findings; rather ir provides examples of findings) Did it really happen? Dunno, but i gotta admit, if you're all worked up about it, I have to think it did.

HRW never made such a claim? Really?

Yes, really. The "charge" Goldstone stepped away from was that it is official policy by the Israeli government to knowingly and deliberately target civilians. What's odd is that this charge never actually appears in the Gaza report. Rather, the report says that there was deliberate targeting (which I remind you, Israel has admitted to) and that the panel conducting the mission could find no credible military reason for having done so. That would then suggest that the reason it was done is to attack the Gazan population; The report then holds the Israeli government responsible for the decisions made by the IDF. You CAN stretch and squish and bend that into claiming that deliberately targeting civilians is official Israeli policy... but that is never said This is why you are relying on drawing implications to make your point.

At any rate, I await your point-by-point debunking of HWR's latest report. After all, if they have absolutely no credibility, right?

...Or will you just prove me right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #29)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:30 AM

31. Why the thin skin when your posts to me are even more hostile? Anyway, I'm stunned w/ yr response...

HRW never made such a claim? Really?

Yes, really. The "charge" Goldstone stepped away from was that it is official policy by the Israeli government to knowingly and deliberately target civilians. What's odd is that this charge never actually appears in the Gaza report. Rather, the report says that there was deliberate targeting (which I remind you, Israel has admitted to) and that the panel conducting the mission could find no credible military reason for having done so. That would then suggest that the reason it was done is to attack the Gazan population; The report then holds the Israeli government responsible for the decisions made by the IDF. You CAN stretch and squish and bend that into claiming that deliberately targeting civilians is official Israeli policy... but that is never said This is why you are relying on drawing implications to make your point.


Wow! You're actually saying Goldstone stepped away from a charge he never actually made in his report. Amazing! Why do you think he'd do that? Anyway, you're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, I was talking about HRW making such claims that Roth denied. Not Goldstone or his report. Just HRW. You seem confused.

=======

From the Goldstone Report's Conclusions:

1883. The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government, thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.
1884. In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support. The Mission considers this position to be firmly based in fact, bearing in mind what it saw and heard on the ground, what it read in the accounts of soldiers who served in the campaign, and what it heard and read from current and former military officers and political leaders whom the Mission considers to be representative of the thinking that informed the policy and strategy of the military operations.
1885. The Mission recognizes that the principal focus in the aftermath of military operations will often be on the people who have been killed – more than 1,400 in just three weeks. This is rightly so. Part of the functions of reports such as this is to attempt, albeit in a very small way, to restore the dignity of those whose rights have been violated in the most fundamental way of all – the arbitrary deprivation of life. It is important that the international community asserts formally and unequivocally that such violence to the most basic fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals should not be overlooked and should be condemned.
1886. In this respect, the Mission recognizes that not all deaths constitute violations of international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality acknowledges that, under certain strict conditions, actions resulting in the loss of civilian life may not be unlawful. What makes the application and assessment of proportionality difficult in respect of many of the events investigated by the Mission is that deeds by the Israeli armed forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that, as a whole, they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the “supporting infrastructure.” In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population.
1887. The timing of the first Israeli attack, at 11.30 a.m. on a weekday, when children were returning from school and the streets of Gaza were crowded with people going about their daily business, appears to have been calculated to create the greatest disruption and widespread panic among the civilian population. The treatment of many civilians detained or even killed while trying to surrender is one manifestation of the way in which the effective rules of engagement, standard operating procedures and instructions to the troops on the ground appear to have been framed in order to create an environment in which due regard for civilian lives and basic human dignity was replaced with disregard for basic international humanitarian law and human rights norms.
1888. The Mission recognizes fully that the Israeli armed forces, like any army attempting to act within the parameters of international law, must avoid taking undue risks with their soldiers’ lives, but neither can they transfer that risk onto the lives of civilian men, women and children. The fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality apply on the battlefield, whether that battlefield is a built-up urban area or an open field.
1889. The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses.
1890. The Mission recognizes that some of those killed were combatants directly engaged in hostilities against Israel, but many were not. The outcome and the modalities of the operations indicate, in the Mission’s view, that they were only partially aimed at killing leaders and members of Hamas, al-Qassam Brigades and other armed groups. They were also to a large degree aimed at destroying or incapacitating civilian property and the means of subsistence of the civilian population.
1891. It is clear from evidence gathered by the Mission that the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.
1892. Allied to the systematic destruction of the economic capacity of the Gaza Strip, there appears also to have been an assault on the dignity of the people. This was seen not only in the use of human shields and unlawful detentions sometimes in unacceptable conditions, but also in the vandalizing of houses when occupied and the way in which people were treated when their houses were entered. The graffiti on the walls, the obscenities and often racist slogans, all constituted an overall image of humiliation and dehumanization of the Palestinian population.
1893. The operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.
1894. The Mission has noted with concern public statements by Israeli officials, including senior military officials, to the effect that the use of disproportionate force, attacks on civilian population and the destruction of civilian property are legitimate means to achieve Israel’s military and political objectives. The Mission believes that such statements not only undermine the entire regime of international law, they are inconsistent with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and, therefore, deserve to be categorically denounced.
1895. Whatever violations of international humanitarian and human rights law may have been committed, the systematic and deliberate nature of the activities described in this report leave the Mission in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.


Those charges cannot be more damning against Israel and its government policy. The charges are what Goldstone retracted. He basically invalidated the entire report. This is why no one today in their right mind is calling for actions against Israel based on the Goldstone Report. It's a dead document, as it should be. Another in a very long line of hostile UN reports aimed at demonizing and delegitimizing Israel with the most frivolous of charges.

======================

Now back to HRW and Ken Roth.

Ken Roth after the Goldstone retraction:

Goldstone backed away from a particularly controversial charge in the report – one that Human Rights Watch, for example, never made.


This is about HRW and what HRW claimed. Roth says HRW never made any claim that it was Israeli policy to target, punish, or kill civilians. But here's Ken Roth before the Goldstone retraction:

"There has been no evidence in those conflicts of a deliberate infliction of suffering on civilians by American or European forces, as there was in Gaza by Israeli forces."

"Israel's view that one prevails in asymmetric warfare by pummeling rather than protecting civilians is not only illegal but also counterproductive."

Israel could have conducted the war by targeting only combatants and taking all feasible precautions to spare civilians, as required by international humanitarian law.

“there is strong evidence that Israel wanted Gazan civilians to pay the price for Hamas’s abuses, and that the decision to impose that cost was taken not by junior officers in the field but by senior government officials.”


Roth claims he and HRW never charged Israel like Goldstone did in his concluding remarks. Ken Roth lied.

True or False?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #31)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 04:34 PM

33. Thin skin? I was just saying you're quite the charmer!

Wow! You're actually saying Goldstone stepped away from a charge he never actually made in his report. Amazing! Why do you think he'd do that?


Perhaps it had something to do with the blatantly antisemitic intimidation campaign against him? You know, the death threats, the harassment of his family, the attempts to bar him from practicing his religion, declaring him "a traitor to the Jewish people," that sort of thing? It's not a claim made in the report, but it is a claim made by the antisemitic fuckwits who equate Israel with all Jews, never read the report, and decided to threaten to kill the man over what they thought might be in there. I'm certain you're very, very familiar with the sort, right?

Anyway, you're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.


I guess I'm just going to have to take your word for it. After all, you're so very trustworthy and your opinion has shown itself to be valid so many times.

Those charges cannot be more damning against Israel and its government policy.


First off, congratulations on reading something, Shira. I didn't think you had it in you; all that "I don't need to read things, I just know" stuff, y'know?

It seems to me that if you stretch a little, you could interpret it as him backing off from 1893. Of course, what you've highlighted is talking about the actions and decisions of the IDF, and not "official Israeli policy." The conclusion was based off evidence at hand.

Since Israel - I really can't point this out enough - decided to waive its own right to participate in the mission, whatever counter-evidence they had was completely and totally unavailable.

He basically invalidated the entire report.


One, you cannot invalidate a UN report through a WaPo editorial.

Two, even if he had never written that WaPo editorial, you'd still be here screaming about the whole thing being "invalid" - even the parts that Israel confirmed (as you have eagerly and often demonstrated in this "discussion.")

Three, allow me to remind you... Five hundred and seventy-five pages. Twenty-five pages of conclusions. He possibly stepped back from one conclusion among them. In an unofficial capacity. After an antisemitic intimidation campaign that included death threats and harassment of his family.

All that work from Team Israel to dehumanize him, threaten his life, threaten his family, deny his faith, attack his decades of academic work, and all you guys got was an unofficial statement in a throwaway line contained in a WaPo editorial that might be one guy on a panel of four stepping back from one out of ninety-one conclusions in the report. No wonder you keep trying to convince everyone it's a major victory.

Another in a very long line of hostile UN reports aimed at demonizing and delegitimizing Israel with the most frivolous of charges.


Yes, it can't be that Israel is wrong. It's just that absolutely everyone else in the world is plotting against them. I have the same problem; whenever someone says I screwed up, I know it's really because they and everyone they know secretly hate me.

You do understand that no "charges" were made, right? "Charge" is a legal term. Also, if they were charges, they'd hardly be "frivolous," charges of war crimes are kinda a big deal, Shira. Maybe the word you're looking for is "false"?

Also... what's with this "delegitimizing" bullshit? What, is the UN going to take away Israel's Country License or something? Do you know how silly that is?

Now back to HRW and Ken Roth.


You mean back to ignoring that the NGO you have declared to have no legitimacy at all has released a pretty damning report against syria, that you are going to just carefully ignore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #33)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 12:55 AM

34. Uhh right, the antisemitic "Lobby" got to Goldstone (the poor victim). And after several posts....

...you continue to deflect rather than answer simple T/F questions about HRW and Ken Roth; meaning you know you're beat and you've got nothing.

No sense going on, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #34)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 01:59 AM

35. I'm glad we agree on something, finally

Yes, Shira. The entire point of a campaign of harassment and intimidation is to "get to" someone and coerce them into giving you what you want.

I did answer your "true / false" questions, Shira. They're right there in post #26. I know they don't give you the answers you wanted, but you're just going to have to accept them.

I want you to answer my question that I posed after answering yours; fair is fair, right?

If HRW is totally without credibility, what do you make of their recent report on Syria?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:27 AM

36. No, we don't agree. I think it's ridiculous to claim the "Lobby" got a "poor victim" like Goldstone

...to reverse something he never claimed. And after reading the report's conclusions, all you say is that maybe he reversed himself in #293? Please. How desperate can you get? The Goldstone Report is dead and buried. Not because only a small, tiny part of it was retracted, but because the entire report was invalidated via his op-ed. I know you don't wish to admit it, but it's past history. It's never coming up again. It's not coming up again b/c even the stupid UN knows it's ridiculous to go on with it when Goldstone nuked it himself. They realize quite well what you cannot admit. It's yet another in a long line of pathetic UN attempts to smear Israel.

As for the T/F questions, no you did not answer specifically about contradictions between HRW and Roth's statements prior to Goldstone's reversal and after, where Roth claims HRW never made such a claim. You have evaded that for several posts now. The deal was that I answer you after you answer me.

To be honest, you didn't answer any questions T/F. You snipped only parts of what you wished to answer. Agreeing to partial truths, which is what you agree with, is agreeing to a lie. When someone only tells a partial truth, they are lying. You know this. It's why you couldn't and will not answer me straight up. You proved my point by evading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #36)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 02:25 PM

37. "The entire report was invalidated" you say?

1697. Palestinian armed groups have launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel
since April 2001. These have succeeded in causing terror within Israel’s civilian population, as
evidenced by the high rates of psychological trauma within the affected communities. The
attacks have also led to erosion of the social, cultural and economic lives of the communities in
southern Israel, and have affected the rights to education of the tens of thousands of children and
young adults who attend classes in the affected areas.


This is one of those completely invalid, false conclusions found in the Goldstone Report. I'm sorry to see that you are denying that hamas and its like have been firing upon and committing terrorism against Israeli civilians, Shira, but, well, there you go. You believe that they have done no such thing. You believe that the Israelis have nothing to worry about, have never been bothered, and that that lying motherfucker Richard Goldstone, with sole guidance of HWR, made up everything.

After all, THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS INVALIDATED.

1748. The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks, launched by Palestinian
armed groups operating from Gaza, have caused terror in the affected communities of southern
Israel. The attacks have caused loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians as well as
damaging private houses, religious buildings and property and eroding the economic and cultural
life of the affected communities and severely affected economic and social rights of the
population.


I'm equally saddened to see you absolutely denying the extensive loss of life, property, and sense of security caused to the Israeli people by Palestinian armed groups, Shira. No doubt those dead and injured are all fake; propaganda conjured by Human Rights Watch in order to indemnify and mislead. Surely they deserve no consideration or thought, since as you have said...

THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS INVALIDATED.

1752. The Mission finds that security services under the control of the Gaza authorities carried
out extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrest, detention and ill treatment of people, in particular
political opponents, which constitute serious violations of the human rights to life, to liberty and
security of the person, to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, to be protected against arbitrary arrest and detention, to a fair and impartial legal
proceeding; and to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions
without interference.


And to top it off, you certainly believe that Hamas has never launched reprisal campaigns against their political opponents, those htye consider "collaborators," or the like. Clearly this lying asshole Richard Goldstone is just trying to pull the wool over your eyes; Hamas has never hurt anyone. Not Israelis, and certainly not any Palestinians, I suppose.

Because THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS INVALIDATED.

77. The Mission is of the opinion that, as a soldier who belongs to the Israeli armed forces and
who was captured during an enemy incursion into Israel, Gilad Shalit meets the requirements for
prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention. As such, he should be protected,
treated humanely and be allowed external communication as appropriate according to that
Convention. The ICRC should be allowed to visit him without delay. Information about his
condition should also be provided promptly to his family.


Since THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS INVALIDATED, this is just blatantly, hideously false in your mind, Shira. Shilat was not a prisoner of war, and was entitled to no consideration or human rights as such. In fact, I can guess that since THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS INVALIDATED that your feeling is that he was never captured; it was all a big hoax.

183. The firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel began in 2001.15 Israeli sources
report that as many as 3,455 rockets and 3,742 mortar shells were fired into Israel from Gaza
until mid-June 2008.16


Rockets? What rockets? THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS INVALIDATED, according to you Shira, so surely this is included. Why are you denying terrorism against the people of Israel?

444. The Mission investigated two incidents in which the Government of Israel alleged that
Palestinian combatants had fired on the Israeli armed forces from within a United Nations
protected site or its immediate vicinity in densely populated urban areas. In the case of the
shelling in al-Fakhura Street by the Israeli armed forces on 6 January 2009 (chap. X), the
Mission accepted, on the basis of information in the reports it had seen, the possibility of mortar
attacks from Palestinian combatants in the vicinity of the school.


Perhaps, since THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS INVALIDATED, you will - in addition to dismissing "claims" of terror attacks against Israel, also dismiss that Palestinian armed groups used civilian locations as bases to fire from. After all, we can't trust anything in this COMPLETELY INVALIDATED report.

So. Shira, in addition to your support for death threats against a man, harassment of his children, and attacks on his Jewish identity, you are also, without qualification or exception, dismissing in total the findings he and his fellow mission members made about terrorism against Israel, deaths of Israelis, deaths of innocent Palestinians at the hands of Palestinian armed groups, and the use of civilian locations as "shields" by those same groups.

Do you know what it's called when you dehumanize people for being Jewish, deny the (obviously true) death and destruction wrought against the Jewish people, and absolve the responsible parties of any guilt, Shira?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #37)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:23 AM

38. It's dead and buried, in the dustbin of history. No one brings it up anymore...

...because Goldstone admitted that most of the report was baseless.

And you still haven't responded with a T/F response to Ken Roth and HRW. Still waiting for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 02:39 PM

41. Nor have you responded to my question about HRW and their report on Syria, Shira

But no matter; I already understand that you will accept that report as completely true, even while you claim HRW has no credibility.

If you remember, this began as me questioning your credibility, and the credibility of your sources, Shira. I'm not surprised by the results of our little exploration of this question, but I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed.

In the course of our journey, you've referenced nothing but right-wing blogs and your own posts. You've struggled - and failed - to "prove' the Gaza Mission report as being "completely discredited," even though you have clearly never once read the thing. In the course of doing so you have also attempted to do the same with Israel's report on the situation. You have apparently endorsed efforts to harass and intimidate a guy, up to and including attacks on his Jewish identity. You squawk about how far without credibility HRW is, but again, you no doubt take their reports as valid when they're talking about Syria - just as I surmised you would.

End result of our little experiment? You have the credibility of a crumb-covered five year old who professes to have never seen a cookie in his life.

Here's hoping you can improve. If nothing else, primary sources. Stop with this "blog repost of a blog repost of an editorial about a news article that references a report" stuff, kay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:04 PM

42. What's there to really respond to? Let's say their report on Syria is perfect....

...what does that have to do WRT their reporting on Israel?

Look, we both know the reason you won't answer WRT Roth and HRW. You know damned well Roth lied and HRW was wrong. Why not just admit it? Their hostility and bias is a matter of record. Here's just one article on it:

http://www.tnr.com/article/minority-report-2

I'm wondering just how much evidence of HRW malice you require before you start admitting you see a problem. 3 examples? 10? 20? Would any amount of evidence suffice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:51 AM

46. It's simple, really.

You've spent this entire time stomping around proclaiming that Human Rights Watch is completely and utterly without any credibility whatsoever. Period. End of story. Fin.

But there's this story of how terrible Syria is being towards its own people, with what was it, 200 citations of torture? God alone knows how many other abuses? And going on HRW's website... moving to their Middle East / North Africa section... Wow. Would you look at that? They're knocking the taste out of the mouths of Libya, Syria, and Iran. Ten pages in, they've gone on about human rights violations in Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia, Algeria, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, loads more about Syria and Iran...

But of course, since they are totally and completely without credibility, all of that is false, right? No doubt it's built upon a deeply held malice towards these countries, perhaps even malice towards the Arab (and Persian) people themselves!

Or not. Maybe your assessment is just fucking wrong. I'm sure the possibility never crossed your mind.

But wait! I forgot. Your problem is with their reporting on Israel, and only with their reporting on Israel, right? Kind of looks that way. Okay. So we've got ourselves a little dichotomy there, Shira. You've drawn this circle around Israel / Palestine and declared every report from HRW about that territory utterly invalid and without merit. All of it. But everything outside that bubble reported by HRW - by the same team, no less - is wholly credible.

If that's the case, then it looks less like a problem with HRW's reporting, and more like you just refusing stuff that doesn't fit your preferred narrative. Which, to hearken back to the original point of this subthread, does no favors to your own credibility.

is HRW's reporting perfect? Probably not, nothing is perfect. But they're not the baby-eating motherfuckers you and others who suffer the "Israel always good, everyone else always bad" logical disjunction insist they are. Ultimately, your "criticisms" come off as mere self-serving whines from a bunch of fanboys dismayed by the poor reviews their favorite franchise is receiving.

if nothing else sinks in, at least ask yourself; if these organizations hate Israel SO SO MUCH, why do they spend so much goddamned time talking about how godawful Israel's neighbors are?

And before you rush back to "Cifwatch" to drum up an article lamenting how often Israel is reported on, I'll go ahead and tell you about this year's statistics. Since the start of this year, HRW has reported on Israel ten times. One of those times was actually commending Israel for acceding to a fellow on a hunger strike. The Palestinian Authority is reported on three times; all three condemning the Palestinian Authority for human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch has made two hundred and sixty reports / releases about the Middle East and North Africa during that time. And the only positive ones were that one for Israel, and another applauding the Arab Spring. 4% (rounded up!) of Human rights Watch's time covering the Middle East / North Africa was spent on Israel this year. 3% of Human rights Watch's time covering the Middle East / North Africa was spent on knocking Israel about this that or th'other this year. And Human rights Watch reports on five other regions in the world, for a total of somewhere between 1400 - 1500 articles total over the past six months.

So, yeah, do make a point of sparing me that "disproportionate reporting" bullshit. If you look at 2009, 2006, or 2002, yeah, you'll find a spike in the numbers of Israel articles then. It's because those were wars (or an uprising, in the case of 2002) and unsurprisingly, human rights tend to get fucked without lube in the course of war. You might almost say it's kind of the POINT of war, honestly, which is a good reason most people think war's a generally bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #46)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:04 AM

47. When the original founder of HRW has a problem with them, something's up...

Seems we'll agree to not agree with each other. I'll leave you with Robert Bernstein's article WRT the organization he founded back in the 70's...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #47)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 01:29 AM

50. Or perhaps Bernstein changed his mind.

It's been known to happen, after all.

For an unrelated example, take Henry Rollins. He was the front man for the punk band Black Flag between 1981 and 1986, then went on to a solo career as a musician, stand-up comedian, and assorted other venues after they broke up. Reportedly he looks back at Black Flag as something of an embarrassment. Does this mean that Black Flag was a bad band? Did they make nothing but bad music? Are fans of Black Flag bad people? Should I trash all my Black Flag songs? Because their front man changed his mind?

Bernstein changed his mind. Good for him, he's certainly entitled to do so. if you think everyone needs to fall into lockstep behind him.. .Well... Sorry, you can act all Branch Davidian if you want, but what i'm seeing, with my own eyes, using primary sources? Doesn't tell me I need to follow Bernstein's lead.

I'll leave you with some awesome fucking music;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #50)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 08:48 AM

51. This is great

Are you a fan of the current or earlier incarnation of Rollins?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #51)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:22 PM

53. Not a huge fan of the Henry Rollins Band

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

though I make an exception for the song "People Who Died." His spoken-word stuff is great, though. Nothing like intelligent yet wild-eyed rants.

On edit: That song turns out ot be by the Jim Carrol Band. Oops. Well, I guess I just don't like the Henry rRollins band, then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #50)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:24 AM

52. Maybe you should ask yourself why Goldstone and Robert Bernstein turned on Roth and HRW....

Both Goldstone and Bernstein were on the HRW board. Do you realize how ballsy it is for both to come out against Roth and HRW?

=======

FYI, B'tselem never agreed with HRW and Goldstone either...

Jessica Montell:
"THE GOLDSTONE Report is unsettling. I was disturbed by the framing of Israel's military operation as part of "an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience."

Yael Stein:
"Virtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group BTselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct. I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack of civilian infrastructure, said Yael Stein, research director of BTselem. It is not convincing."


B'tselem also called bullshit on HRW's claim that there was no evidence of Hamas human shielding in Gaza....

"B'Tselem recognizes the complexity of combat in a densely populated area against armed groups that do not hesitate to use illegal means and find refuge within the civilian population.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3774217,00.ht...

HRW has never once recognized this complexity of combat for the IDF and denies that Hamas deliberately finds refuge within civilian populations.

As an Israeli organization, B'Tselem focuses on Israel's human rights obligations. However, the organization states that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Hamas’ method of combat and treatment of the Palestinian civilian population affects the legality of Israeli attacks and the injury they caused to civilians.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20090208....

HRW has never once articulated that Hamas' method of combat and treatment of Palestinian civilians within Gaza affects the legality of Israeli attacks and any injury that the IDF causes to civilians.

================

Now that HRW's hostility and bias is a matter of factual record, consider the repercussions of their narrow obsession with Israel. Do you realize HRW hasn't reported once in over a decade about Mauritania's record on slavery? It's rampant there. Makes you wonder what else HRW is failing to report on while drafting bogus reports about Israel, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #52)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:28 PM

54. I thought you were done, Shira?

Now, in addition to continuing trying to convince me that HRW's "hostility and bias" is a "matter of record," you're going to try to give me arguments as for how and why it's okay to kill civilians? And those arguments amount to "Hey, could have been worse" and of course, "the devil made me do it."

Save it for another thread, Shira.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #54)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 03:48 PM

55. Just saying Goldstone, Bernstein, and B'tselem call BS on HRW claims. Deal with it as you wish.

And what's the point now of bringing up human rights WRT civilians killed in combat? Israel's record on that is better than any other nation on the planet, including NATO, the USA, and UK.

Face it, Roth and HRW lied.

Not only do they lie, they'd rather do that than commit to even one report on a country like Mauritania (which they haven't reported on in 15 years despite rampant slavery there). If they do that WRT Mauritania, what else is HRW failing to report on when they claim to work for universal human rights?

Not interested anymore, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #55)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:08 AM

56. I had thought you were calling it quits, is all

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

One; It's not quite accurate that HRW has not reported on Mauritania in fifteen years. It's not quite a lie, either, though. There are actually several countries in Africa that Human Rights Watch doesn't cover with any regularity, it seems; Mauritania is one of them. Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Congo, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Sao Tome & Principe, Swaziland, and the Seychelles are the other African countries that don't seem to get primary airtime. You can find their mentions however by using the search function on their site. There are a few other countries "omitted" by HRW around the world; Mongolia, Finland, and Suriname, for a few. However, by using the search function you can easily find articles on these nations just the same.

My guess as to the reason for this is simple inaccessibility, for the most part; Burkina Faso is, shall we say, "rugged." The Seychelles are tiny islands under an absolute monarchy that isn't about to let any monitors in, etc.. But please, do tell me how in your world, omission of Finland furthers Human Rights Watch's malicious, evil, anti-Israel intent.

While you're telling me that, maybe you'd like to link me to your no doubt numerous posts scattered around DU - old or new - regarding and bringing attention to the slaves of Mauritania. I'm sure that since this subject is of deep concern to you, I'll be greeted with at least ten such links, and I look forward to your informed and experienced insights into a situation of which I admit I am only peripherally aware. Oh, one thing... they should be threads that are not presented in the context of Israel / Palestine.

As for the killing of civilians... you're the one who opened that up. If you want to close it back up, hey feel free. I'm just pointing out that these arguments;
"It's not as bad as it COULD have been; we could have killed lots and lots and lots and lots more people!"
and
"Don't worry, it's cool; the bad guys made me do it, I'm in the clear"
Are shitty fucking arguments, regardless of who's using them, or why. Here, let me show you.

Hamas: "So we shot five hundred rockets over the border last week, who cares, we only caused a few minor injuries and some property damage. It could have been so much worse!"
Syria: "All the people we're killing are really foreign terrorists. So it's okay that we're killing them. Yes, there were some innocents, but the terrorists had to be fought!
Mauritania: "Yes, we have slaves. But at least we don't eat them!"
United States: "Yes, we admit we totally flattened a medium-sized city in Iraq. But we totally let everyone know before we did it. The only people left in there were terrorists; all the innocents fled!"

See how goofy that is? Don't use shitty arguments, Shira.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #56)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:53 AM

58. Can't defend HRW now, can you? Go back to where this all started in post #12...

...where you questioned this:

With politicians, NGOs and charities totally impotent to stop massacres in Syria and starvation and disease in Africa they got back to doing what they do best; delegitimising Israel.


You were wrong, weren't you? Because that's in fact what HRW is doing. It's so bad that HRW hasn't mentioned slavery in Mauritania in over 15 years.

They'd rather focus obsessively on delegitimizing Israel w/ their false allegations (ones you cannot defend either, because in doing so you go against B'tselem and Goldstone).

As to Israel and civilians in combat, Israel is already more careful WRT civilians than NATO, the USA, or UK. Israel has dozens of human rights organizations within the country (like B'tselem) that hold them accountable. Obviously, those organizations are doing the job given Israel's record WRT civilians (better civilian to combatant kill ratio than any other nation on the planet). Closed societies have no one holding them accountable for their human rights violations.

So how do you justify HRW's wasteful and irrational focus on Israel (given their limited, finite resources) to the detriment of the human rights of so many others on the planet? So much for universal human rights, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 04:18 PM

62. What's there to "defend" them against?

You've come up with nothing that requires a defense, Shira.

1) OMG THEY CAN'T FORCE ASSAD AND HIS CRONIES TO STOP KILLING PEOPLE!
Well, no, they can't. Short of military intervention, the only way for that situation to stop is if Assad decides to stop, or if the people they're killing manage to overthrow his regime. However, Human Rights Watch has released a fairly comprehensive and quite damning report against Syria for what it's doing. It's a reporting organization, not a paramilitary force, and it's done exactkly what itsstated purpose is regarding Syria.

2) LOL THE FOUNDER DISAGREES WITH THEM NOW!"
Good for him, he'd changed his mind since 1988 (or 1978, if you want to go all the way back to Helsinki Watch.) At the same time, Human rights Watch has expanded its focus beyond just "closed regimes" because, obviously, human rights offenses take place in "open" regimes as well.

3) THEY HATE ISRAEL AND YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE THEY WRITE ABOUT ISRAEL SO MUCH!
Do they? Do you know what nation, bar none, has absolutely the most Human Rights Watch articles written about it? Israel, right? Oooooh, it's GOTTA be Israel. Israel's the poor innocent victim here, bullied by the big mean NGO, right?
Nope. it's not Israel. Not by a long shot. it's not even a combination of Israel / Palestine. It's China. Well, Israel must be second-place! ...Nope, that'd be Russia. Third place is the United States. Fourth is a tie between Burma and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Israel is in the "big middle" along with places like the United Kingdom or Egypt.

4) "THEY ARE DELEGITIMIZING ISRAEL!"
Like I asked... what, are they going to take away Israel's license? How does this work? Despite my browser's spellcheck's insistence, 'delegitimizing' is a real word, with a real meaning. Human Rights Watch has no authority to remove the legal status of a nation. Nor for that matter, does anyone else. I've noticed Team Israel has taken to using this instead of the older "right to exist" argument, but both are goofy arguments simply because as long as Israel's saying Israel exists, then it fucking does. The only way that will change is if Israel goes all Rhodesia and says "never mind," or if the Red Sea rift opens up and results in Israel (along with Lebanon and much of Jordan) becoming a new seaway between the Red and Mediterranean.

5) THEY'RE FALSE ALLEGATIONS!
Maybe some of 'em are. Already said I don't expect 'em to be perfect. Your argument isn't about "some," however. You've been screaming from your little rooftop this whole time about how Human rights Watch is completely without credibility. Absolutely, 100%, totally wrong about absolutely everything. Basically, if they reported on Slavery in Mauritania, you would be forced - by your absolutist standpoint - to dismiss it as false, malicious slander against the good people of Mauritania.

Also, you applied the "completely without credibility" and "malicious intent against Israel" to absolutely every NGO and international agency that contributed to the Gaza Report. One of those contributors was B'tselem. You've supported antisemitic slander, death threats, and intimidation against Richard Goldstone as well, while insisting he's completely wrong about everything. You don't get to hide behind them, Shira.

6) I TRULY CARE DEEPLY, WITH ALL MY HEART, FOR THE SLAVES OF MAURITANIA, AND MY CONCERN IS NOT SOLELY A FARCE TO DISTRACT FROM A DISCUSSION THAT ISN'T GOING MY WAY!
Still waiting on those links, Shira.

We're done here, Shira. But i'm not going to leave you empty-handed.

It's impossible to have a bad day with that stuck in your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #62)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 06:08 PM

63. LOL. Even B'tselem directors have a problem with HRW's main allegations vs. Israel...

...that Goldstone retreated from. Worse, Ken Roth lied about what HRW reported and when responding to Goldstone's retraction, he insisted Israel (the govt, not some rogue soldiers or units) targeted civilians. The idiot couldn't even keep his damned story straight in his response to Goldstone. "Hey, we never signed onto Goldstone's conclusion that he retracted. But Israel did target civilians. So there". Roth is a tool, and you can find nothing to defend?



Yeah, you're right. You're done. You were done a while back when you refused to answer any of my T/F questions. I knew that either you wouldn't or you'd have to admit you were wrong. This conversation basically ended back then.

Ironic how you can find absolutely nothing to criticize wrt HRW. Idealogues and religious types operate similarly. Usually, it's the anti-Israel critics who accuse Israel's supporters of being incapable of criticizing Israel (not that I've seen any Israel supporters who have nothing to criticize Israel for). But here you are doing exactly that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #29)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:43 AM

32. LOL.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:21 PM

27. you may be shocked at this but links to sites such as the Volokh Conspiracy to prove your opinion

do tend to strain your credibility on this site, perhaps you are confusing it with another one ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:25 AM

39. Don't really know what you're on about...

If it's about rightwing sources, maybe you should consider another site on which to post your favorite Ma'an and EI rightwingery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:38 PM

49. well 'Alice' I guess the rabbit was talking to you or was it the queen? sounds more like the queen

but you do seem to have a unique perspective of what is rightwing and what is progressive, kudos I always find it quite fascinating

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #49)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:28 AM

57. By unique...

do you mean "unique" like dadaism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #57)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:31 PM

61. could be n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #49)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 11:03 AM

59. When you adopt the rhetoric of regressive rightwing anti-Israel regimes and advocate....

...on behalf of their totalitarian anti-liberal leadership against a progressive democracy like Israel, then it's preposterous to claim you hold to liberal/progressive values. It's silly for you to call out liberals for their alleged "rightwingery".

Heck, you recently all but admitted you're for Palestinian nationalism first and foremost before anything else. Their civil rights are secondary. If they never have civil rights, that's okay too. Now if THAT's not a rightwing nationalist viewpoint, I don't know what is.

Have a nice day, "Alice".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #59)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:30 PM

60. so do Israels 'liberal' civil rights laws apply to the non citizen Palestinians living in the

territories under its military rule? Supporting Palestinians who demand their own state as a opposed to a military occupation who's home country may be 'liberal' but who's 'liberal' laws do not apply or have any bearing on the treatment of those non-citizens who live under that occupation is rightwing, totalitarian, and anticivil rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #60)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 06:24 PM

64. No, of course not. But you're not merely for Palestinians having their own state...

...with everyone enjoying their civil liberties. Their civil liberties must be put on hold until they get such a state. THAT is your opinion.

That opinion applies to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon suffering under apartheid conditions. THEY don't get civil liberties b/c you don't believe condemning Lebanon would amount to much. You won't lift a finger for them. The same applies to Hamas in Gaza. You can't criticize them either for their human rights violations against Palestinians there.

So why should anyone believe you'll suddenly start "caring" about Palestinian civil rights once the WB occupation ends and the Palestinians have a state there? Why would you "care" more about their civil liberties than any other Arabs in the region (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc)?

It's so bad that when I asked you earlier if 'Goldstone' was worth it; worth that monumental waste of time and resources that took away from worse around the globe (like Palestinian rights under Lebanese/Gazan rule) you said 'yes'. The reason you gave is that Israel did stuff in response to it, so it wasn't a wasted effort. Meaning, you don't expect Lebanon, Gaza, or the WB to ever listen to the UNHRC or HRW. There's no point. They won't change. Meaning you'll do THEN as you do NOW and never advocate for Palestinian civil rights. Not even when they have their own state. What's the point, right?

In essence, you're doing the advocacy of the most regressive, rightwing totalitarian regimes in that region. You're working AGAINST the people and their civil rights. You want to give the PLO and Hamas their own state, to do with it as they will. And you'll never condemn them. That would be "delegitimization". And yet you're here accusing others of rightwingery, "Alice".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #64)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 07:35 PM

65. Palestinians civil rights are on hold spin that anyway you'd like it is the truth

the next 4 paragraphs of accusatory garbage you just posted can not distract from that no matter how hard you wish

it could seem that your are for Palestinians civil rights being on hold as long as it's Israel putting them on hold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:04 AM

9. a report on this from B'tselem who interviewed 50 Palestinian kids who had been detained by Israel

The arrest: Thirty of the minors said they were taken from their home by soldiers in the middle of the night and that their parents were not allowed to accompany them.

The interrogation: Only three of the minors who were arrested at night said they were interrogated that night. Nineteen stated they were questioned the next morning, three were questioned in the afternoon, and two were not questioned until five days later. Only three of the minors who were arrested at night reported that they were given a reasonable chance to sleep prior to the interrogation, and five related that soldiers made a point of awakening them if they fell asleep while waiting for the interrogation. Nineteen also said they were treated violently and were threatened during the interrogation, and 23 said that they were not allowed, for many hours, to perform necessary functions, such as going to the bathroom, eating, and drinking.

Remand until the end of proceedings: The military justice system does not have an alternative to remand until the end of proceedings as the Israeli law does. In the vast majority of cases, the judges order the minor held in custody until the end of the proceedings. Of the 133 minors who were prosecuted for stone throwing in cases handled by DCI-Palestine in 2009 and 2010, only 23 (17 percent) were released on bail pending their trial. As a result, many minors prefer to enter into a plea bargain, in which they confess to the charges against them in exchange for a shorter sentence, fearing that, if a trial is held, they would be kept in jail during the long period of time that it takes to complete the trial.

Imprisonment: Imprisonment, rather than an alternative punishment, is the principal penalty chosen by the military courts. In the period 2005-2010, 93 percent of the minors convicted of stone throwing were given a prison sentence, its length ranging from a few days to 20 months. Nineteen minors under age 14, who accounted for 60 percent of this age group who were convicted of stone throwing during this period, were given a prison sentence. Under the law in Israel, incarceration of minors under age 14 is prohibited.

http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/2011-no-minor-matter

&feature=player_embedded

link to PDF of full report

http://www.btselem.org/download/201107_no_minor_matter_eng.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:44 PM

15. Arrests of Palestinian children– ‘a boy in leg irons’ — is becoming a big story in UK

When I first read Joseph Dana's article of last year, "Israeli army targets and arrests children in order to repress Palestinian dissent in the West Bank," it sent chills up my spine, and I was sure that someday, somehow this story would get out onto the world stage. Today we're one step closer.

The Independent's Terri Judd is reporting that the UK is ready to take on Israel over fate of children clapped in irons:

snip

Judd's article chronicles a delegation of senior British lawyers and their report, Children in Military Custody. But one thing it does not do is provide context for a lot of these arrests. It doesn't mention they take place in villages across the West Bank involved in non-violent struggle and in areas where village lands are targeted for annexation to nearby settlements and the settlers are pushing Palestinians off their lands.

People cherish their children. That is one thing all societies share in common. Targeting the children of a village so as to stop residents from protesting the confiscation of their village land or for the theft of resources or expansion of settlements is, as the Independent says, unconscionable-- and it is happening right before our eyes in villages all across the West Bank including Bil'in, Nabi Saleh, Beit Ommar, Beit Sahour, the Jordan Valley as well as in East Jerusalem.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/arrests-of-palestinian-children-a-boy-in-leg-irons-is-becoming-a-big-story-in-uk.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:19 AM

28. WATCH: Palestinian child kicked by Border Police in Hebron

B’Tselem just released disturbing footage of a Border Police officer kicking a Palestinian child while another officer holds him on the streets of occupied Hebron. The video was shot last Friday June 29 by a B’Tselem activist, from the window of his house, adjacent to the Tomb of the Patriarchs. According to B’Tselem, the person started shooting the video upon noticing a border police officer hiding behind the wall.

The name of the child is Abed a-Rahman and he is only 9 years old. You can see the policeman at the start of the video appear, then disappear, and then reappear at about 1:22 when he runs to grab the child and says: “Why are you causing trouble?” As the policeman holds the crying boy, another policeman comes and kicks him. The child is then released and runs away and the policemen disperse. B’Tselem is filing a complaint against the two men with the Police Investigation Department.

http://972mag.com/watch-palestinian-child-kicked-by-border-police-in-hebron/49951

&feature=player_embedded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread