Livni: Lieberman ruined years of peace efforts in just 20 minutes

[oberliner]

Opposition leader Tzipi Livni on Friday accused Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermanas having "erased in 20 minutes years of efforts to advance the peace process" when he declared that Israel was not bound by commitments it made at a 2007 summit in Annapolis to pursue creation of a Palestinian state

In an interview with Israel Radio, the Kadima chairwoman said she had expected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to announce that he did not share Lieberman's expressed sentiments, and was disappointed that such clarification was not made.

Meanwhile, outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert said on Thursday that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process kick-started in Annapolis bolstered international recognition of Israel.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076196.html

[Jefferson23]

1. And the implosion intensifies.

[kirby]

2. What do you expect from someone named Lieberman n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. What peace process?

Lieberman is just the ugly face of Israeli policy without the veil of sham negotiations.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. unfortunately that is all too true

when I think of the assent of Avigdor Lieberman, I think of the title of Jonathan Cook's book, "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State." -

http://www.jkcook.net/Blood-and-Religion.htm#Top

[oberliner]

5. When I think of Jonathan Cook

I think of his spirited defense of Hezbollah against Human Rights Watch.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. Human Rights Watch detailed investigation revealed that Mr. Cook was to large extent correct

"Human Rights Watch found no evidence in these cases of the separate legal violation of shielding, which is the deliberate use of civilians to render combatants immune from attack. The various film clips and photos published by the IDF and its allies do not provide that evidence."

" Human Rights Watch found that Hezbollah stored its rockets in bunkers and facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys; ordered its fighters and civilian officials away from populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started; and fired its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages. In the vast majority of airstrikes resulting in civilian deaths investigated by Human Rights Watch, there was no Hezbollah military presence or activity to justify the attack."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/05/israellebanon-israeli-indiscriminate-attacks-killed-most-civilians

[azurnoir]

10. Nothing like unmasking

especially when it comes to small details like what "spirited defense" means

[shira]

13. no evidence of Hezbollah human shields? Then what in the hell do you call this?

"Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets," said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. "They are shooting from between our houses." "Please,'' he added, "write that in your newspaper." Many Christians from Ramesh and Ain Ebel considered Hezbollah's fighting methods as much of an outrage as the Israeli strikes. Mr. Amar said Hezbollah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back. One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail. "This is what's happening, but no one wants to say it" for fear of Hezbollah, she said.
- Sabrina Tavernise, "Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hezbollah," The New York Times, July 28, 2006


Near the hospital, a mosque lay in ruins.... A man approached and told me that he was a teacher at the Hariri school. I asked him why he thought the Israelis had hit a mosque, and he said, simply, "It was a Hezbollah mosque." ... A younger man came up to me and, when we were out of earshot of others, said that Hezbollah had kept bombs in the basement of the mosque, but that two days earlier a truck had taken the cache away. It was common knowledge in Sidon, he said, and everyone was expecting the mosque to be hit. When, the previous evening, displaced people from the south had gathered on the grounds, they had been warned away.
- Jon Lee Anderson, "The Battle for Lebanon," The New Yorker, August 8, 2006 (emphasis added).


Even if the location of UN posts were known to Israeli commanders, that doesn't rule out the possibility that Hezbollah fighters used one as a shield from which to unleash fire. They've done so in the past, says Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret'd.), who witnessed the technique while on peacekeeping assignments in the area. "It's the same as if you set up your weapons systems beside a mosque or a church or a hospital."
- Carlie Gillis, "Diplomacy Under Fire," MacLean's, August 7, 2006


The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell. "Look what they did to this place," Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. "Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?" The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher. Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel. "What choice to we have? We need to fight back from somewhere," he said, tapping his foot on the ground. "This is Hezbollah's heartland.
- Sonia Verma, "Hezbollah's Deadly Hold on Heartland", National Post, August 5, 2006.


Days after fighting broke out between Israel and Hezbollah on July 12, Abbas said Hezbollah fighters went door-to-door in Ain Ebel, asking everyone to give up their cell phones. "They were worried about collaborators giving the Israelis information," she said. While she was there, Abbas said, she heard from relatives that her house in Bint Jbeil had been destroyed. She said Hezbollah fighters had gathered in citrus groves about 500 yards from her home.
- Mohamad Bazzi, "Mideast Crisis - Farewell to a Soldier; Reporting from Lebanon; Running Out of Places to Run," Newsday, July 28, 2006


But far from saying there was no Hezbollah activity in the area to justify Israeli interest, Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail, written July 19 and posted on the website of CTV, recounts numerous incidents. He also said of Israeli counter-fire to that date: "This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity." "What I can tell you is this," Hess-von Kruedner wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing." "The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity." Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, retired major general Lewis MacKenzie said in an interview. "What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces),'" said MacKenzie, who led Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia.
- Steven Edwards, "UN contradicts itself over Israeli attack", CanWest News Service, July 27, 2006



Hezbollah launches missile volleys at Israel from positions endangering UN observation posts. Indeed, the Ottawa Citizen reported last week that a Canadian UN observer stationed in the village of Khiam e-mailed home that "we've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions ... using us for shields and then engaging the ." On July 26, this observer and three others were killed when an Israeli bomb hit the post.
- David Schenker, "Laying out the Qana calculation; Disarming Hezbollah Prevents More Crises," Chicago Tribune, August 2, 2006



It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, AtTiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin.
- United Nations interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Naqoura, July 28, 2006 (Press Release)


While these pictures have escaped the ravaged country, other images and footage taken by local newspaper and television teams are routinely seized by armed Hezbollah fighters at road blocks. In one image a group of fighters, including youths, are preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun just metres from an apartment block with sheets drying on a balcony. Others show a Hezbollah fighter armed with a nickel-plated AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes. Another depicts the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block, blown up in an Israeli air attack. The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated. '"Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets," he said. "Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was devastated. "After the attacks they didn't even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets and hiding other evidence. "It was carnage. Two innocent people died in that incident but it was so lucky it was not more. The people there were horrified and disgusted at what Hezbollah were doing.'' The fighters used trucks, driven into residential areas, as launch pads for the rockets, he said. Another image shows a line of decimated trucks sitting behind a 5m crater. The tourist who smuggled the images back to Melbourne said the trucks had been carrying rockets. The release of the images comes as Hezbollah fighters face increasing censure for using innocent civilians as "human shields".
- Chris Tinkler, "Revealed: How Hezbollah puts the innocent at risk; They don't care," Sunday Mail (Australia), July 30, 2006


I'm really dying to see someone here attempt to defend HRW's suppression of evidence against Hezbollah. How can anyone here claiming to be in the humanitarian "peace camp" dare to defend the indefensible? It's not as if Lebanese civilians volunteered to sacrifice themselves and their children for the cause in 2006.

[shira]

14. read above quotes first.....then read this outright lie by HRW...whose human rights do they protect?

" Human Rights Watch found that Hezbollah stored its rockets in bunkers and facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys; ordered its fighters and civilian officials away from populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started; and fired its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages. In the vast majority of airstrikes resulting in civilian deaths investigated by Human Rights Watch, there was no Hezbollah military presence or activity to justify the attack."

This claim was never retracted by HRW.

HRW also claims to have found no evidence of Hamas human shields despite even more evidence (photographic and video):

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Hamas_Exploitation_Civilians_Jan_2009.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Hamas+exploitation+of+civilians+as+human+shields+-+Photographic+evidence.htm

Nothing to see there!

Seriously, does HRW absolutely loathe Palestinian and Lebanese civilians? If they wish to see Palestinian and Lebanese suffering maximized for a more extended amount of time, they're certainly doing a great job at that.

But please, feel free to give HRW all your support for the wonderful humanitarian work they do! :sarcasm:

[shira]

15. Amnesty International wasn't much better

“While the presence of Hizbullah’s fighters and short-range weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as ‘human shields’, any more than the presence of Israeli soldiers in a kibbutz is in itself evidence of the same war crime.”

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/033/2006

Who here still thinks Lebanese and Palestinian civilians have a lot to be thankful for due to "humanitarian" efforts from HRW and AI?

I'm betting Hezbollah and Hamas appreciate HRW and AI's efforts more than the citizens of Lebanon and Gaza. But maybe that's just me. :eyes:

Anyone thinking of donating to and supporting HRW and AI now?

[Violet_Crumble]

28. There's quite a few Amnesty International members at DU...

I'm one of them, and I for one am proud to be supporting a group that works to protects the human rights of people around the world. In all the time I've been at DU, this is the first time I've seen anyone openly advocate people not support Amnesty International, and that'd be because forms of rabid hatred of AI are not in any way a left-wing stance...

But seeing as how you don't want people supporting AI, please give me a list of Shira-approved human rights organisations that I could donate to and support seeing you don't want me donating to AI...

[shira]

32. that statement by AI is so idiotic and wrong, I don't see how anyone could possibly agree with it

Here it is again:

“While the presence of Hizbullah’s fighters and short-range weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as ‘human shields’, any more than the presence of Israeli soldiers in a kibbutz is in itself evidence of the same war crime.”

There exists plenty of evidence of Hezbollah intent to use civilian population centers as shields for their military operations. Anyone looking at the evidence provided above can see that.

AI knows very well that deploying fighters in civilian areas makes those areas a legitimate military target for Israel to attack. Same goes for weapons stored in civilian locations. The damning evidence provided above shows deliberate intent.

AI is full of shit and it's obvious that by whitewashing and giving short shrift to all the evidence that they did NOT stand up for the rights of Lebanese civilians in 2006.

How would you like it if your entire family lived in south Lebanon, Hezbollah used them deliberately as shields (like in the examples provided in previous posts above), and AI came to this outrageous conclusion?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. So, whic human rights organisations do you approve of?

Is there actually one? I asked you the question in my post and you ignored it, so I'd like an answer...

[shira]

36. can't defend HRW and AI, can you? Given evidence against them, why do you approve of HRW and AI?

I'll gladly answer you when you start answering my questions.

Deal?

So far, for every question I answer, there are at least 2-3 you choose not to answer. Rather than having a polite discussion, I feel like I'm being interrogated by you. It would be nice if you answered questions too.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I've already explained why I support AI and HRW...

Will you need me to repeat it in bigarse bolded font so you notice it?

Also, since when has DU become a place for people to sit and lash out at human rights organisations and advocate that people not support them?

Don't worry, Shira. I'm not expecting that you can supply the name of even one human rights organistion that you approve of. Take a look around you. This is a left-wing forum for people who do support human rights around the world. That's why just in the I/P forum alone, you'll find people who disagree with each other on aspects of the I/P conflict having a common bond of being members of Amnesty International (I know LB and I are members, and I'm pretty sure a pro-Israel DUer called Eyl is as well).

No offense, but it appears you have some sort of irrational hatred of HRW and AI and are in no way capable of discussing anything they report when it comes to human rights abuses against Palestinians by the IDF in a rational or even slightly objective manner. It's the same lack of objectivity that anti-choicers I used to annoy a few years ago on another forum used to display - they'd pooh-pooh reports from medical bodies like the AMA as being full of lies and ever so biased, and then 'debunk' them with 'evidence' from sites with names like SaveTheTinyUnbornBabies.com

[shira]

40. you believe I have some "irrational" hatred of HRW and AI?

if so, then please explain what is so irrational about the collection of evidence provided against their reports on human shields utilized by both Hizbullah and Hamas. It's not irrational at all, for if it were, you'd be able to easily refute the evidence accumulated against them and defend HRW and AI's outrageous statements. It appears that rather than face facts, you trivialize or completely ignore and dismiss the evidence (without giving any reason to do so), claim it's irrational hate and mudslinging, and then pretend you have scored some 'victory' and have proven your point. May I suggest that if you have good reason to call criticism of HRW and AI "irrational hate" or "mudslinging", that you actually present a credible case that proves your point? Just labeling it "mudslinging" and "irrational" is not proof that it is. You should give reasons supporting those allegations, just as I have given reasons.

As for credible and reliable Human Rights orgs, there's Human Rights First and the Anti Defamation League. There are also some very good anti-slavery organizations too. Sorry to break it to you, but HRW and AI deserve condemnation, they're not the only major human rights orgs, there are others, and therefore there is no reason to accept and trust ones as demonstrably unreliable as HRW and AI on all topics I/P. Besides, since when should left-wingers support HRW and AI when there are other more honest and credible human rights orgs that deserve support? Do you for some reason believe that left-wingers are forced to accept and rely upon HRW and AI because there are no other orgs out there that are better and more reliable? Were HRW and AI voted "best leftwing humanrights org" that must be accepted in order for leftwingers to have "street cred" with other leftwingers? Did I miss that memo?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. That's what I said....

Sorry, but when someone dismisses HRW reports without even reading them (which is what you initially did with the HRW report on white phosphorous), calls HRW investigators 'HRW hamasniks' (which you did), dismisses all the eye-witness testimonies in a detailed report as *bogus* (which you did), advocates people not support HRW or AI (which you did), constantly calls them liars (which you did), and regularly posts untrue claims about them (which you have and have been corrected on by both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian posters), then it's a safe bet that there's some irrational hatred and lack of objectivity going on.

You know what's so dangerous about attitudes like yrs? It's the complete lack of willingness to understand that both HRW and AI do by the very nature of their work around the world with victims of human rights abuses, have a heavy responsibility to be open, transparent, politically impartial, and honest. If they're not, their valuable work around the world is negated as all eyewitness testimonies can be dismissed as *bogus*. Yet you continue to do it. You produce quotes from newspapers and forget that using the standard you set for eyewitness testimonies in Gaza that according to yr logic they're unverifiable, and claim that they're evidence and facts. You produce IDF reports as though they're an impartial source while accusing AI and HRW of not being impartial, and then when picked up on it, you start insisting that sources don't matter.

Sorry, but the ADL isn't a human rights organisation, and I'm a bit confused after looking at the Human Rights First website. I saw only one press release about Gaza, yet more than a few on how what was happening in Gaza was causing antisemitism. I know some human rights groups are focused on only one or two areas and haven't got the resources that global ones do, but I found the way Gaza was referenced rather strange...

[shira]

44. there's nothing irrational about the video and photo evidence against HRW and AI claims

There is also nothing irrational about pointing out past eyewitness testimony by AI and HRW that was proven to be completely fabricated (like in the Muhammad al-Dura case and others). It looks like you're having problems with any criticism of AI and HRW, which is your normal accusation against pro-Israel people. Let's not pretend that the IDF does not support their claims with photo and video evidence.

The ADL is, of course, a human rights organization. Seriously, what do you think they do? You may want to google the words ADL and human rights organization to find proof they are a human rights organization.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Do you want to go back and this time READ my post...

The first paragraph, Shira. I explained in some detail what I found was irrational and lacking in objectivity in yr attitudes towards AI and HRW. Do you have anything to say in response to what I actually said? Probably not...

]i]It looks like you're having problems with any criticism of AI and HRW, which is your normal accusation against pro-Israel people.

Wrong again. I don't have any problem with legitimate and objective criticism of either organisation, especially the one I'm a member of. And what exactly do you claim is my 'normal accusation against pro-Israeli people'? That sentence made no sense at all...


Let's not pretend that the IDF does not support their claims with photo and video evidence.

Yr quite aware that's not the issue. The issue is that while HRW supported their report on the use of WP with photo, eyewitness and physical evidence, you automatically dismissed it as bogus before even reading the report, but now insist that IDF reports are credible evidence because they have photos and videos...

The ADL is, of course, a human rights organization. Seriously, what do you think they do?

They're an NGO. I know what they do. They trot out the stock standard pro-Israel line on everything, making them very politicised and biased, and for a group who is opposed to antisemitism and Holocaust Denial, had no problems denying the Armenian genocide...

[shira]

47. true or false

HRW and AI have in the past used fabricated eyewitness accounts to bolster their reports against Israel and they have neither retracted those reports or apologized for them.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Can't you stick to addressing what I say in posts you reply to?

Seriously, yr getting a little on the irritating side with this ignoring of what I say in favour of flying off on some tangent or other....

No, unlike you I haven't read every single word that AI and HRW have ever put out, so I wouldn't know for sure one way or the other....

[shira]

51. the answer is "TRUE". HRW and AI have in the past used fabricated and false eyewitness accounts

Amnesty and HRW Claims Discredited in Detailed Report
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_and_hrw_claims_discredited_in_detailed_report

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

It doesn't get much more damning than that, Violet. And to this day, not one retraction. Not one apology. Meanwhile, Lebanese and Gazan citizens are waiting for HRW and AI to stand up for their human rights against Hamas and Hezbollah forces.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. You haven't read every word HRW or AI put out either, so cut the crap...

Why must you insist on spamming this forum with links to highly partisan and incredibly biased pro-Israel sites and proclaim that they're the *TrUtH*? Shira, you don't possess a shred of objectivity or it appears common-sense or logic when it comes to yr crusade to slag off HRW and AI, and you don't even read their reports before you've discarded them as *lies*. Yet anything that's heavily pro-Israel and has never criticised Israeli policy and actions in the Occupied Territories is lauded by you as credible and the *truth* and not biased. I wish you realised how silly you come across. Maybe you'd get away with this sort of thing somewhere like the old Yahoo news forums where they were fast moving and discussion wasn't indepth or meant to be intelligent in any way, but here at DU, it stands out like a sore thumb...

btw, you really have a nerve daring to try to speak on behalf of Gazans and Lebanese...

[shira]

58. don't have to read every word they put out.....HRW's bullshit from 2006 is enough, isn't it?

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2006/Operation%20Change%20of%20Direction%20Video%20Clips

You see those videos and pictures? That's evidence that apparently doesn't exist according to HRW. There's no defending their bullshit and you know it.

btw, you really have a nerve daring to try to speak on behalf of Gazans and Lebanese...

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean I need to be anti-Arab. Apparently being anti-Israel means you're only for Arab Palestinians and Lebanese when it looks like the IDF is the cause of their suffering. When it's Hamas and Hizbullah, Arab civilians apparently cannot count on you to speak up for them. I can't think of anything as regressive and anti-Arab as having no problem with HRW ignoring and suppressing evidence of their suffering at the hands of their Jihadi oppressors.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. I doubt you've read much at all....

Why are you insisting on posting links to the IDF when by yr own admission anyone who lies isn't to be trusted? Remember that the IDF have been caught out lying? Or doesn't that apply to the IDF?

Being pro-Israel doesn't mean I need to be anti-Arab.

And no-one said anything otherwise. What I said was you really have a nerve to try to speak on behalf of Gazans and Lebanese. I wouldn't even dare to do that, so what makes you think you have the right?

Apparently being anti-Israel means you're only for Arab Palestinians and Lebanese when it looks like the IDF is the cause of their suffering.

I've got no idea what the fuck this 'anti-Israel' crap is or what yr comment is aimed at...

When it's Hamas and Hizbullah, Arab civilians apparently cannot count on you to speak up for them.

Up till this point I've been restrained, but I really have to say I think yr either one of the most stupid individuals who's ever graced this forum, or yr flat out dishonest. Please read through the forum and you'll see that I do indeed criticise Hamas and Hizbollah. Then you can come back and apologise...

I can't think of anything as regressive and anti-Arab as having no problem with HRW ignoring and suppressing evidence of their suffering at the hands of their Jihadi oppressors.

For the millionth time, HRW has indeed criticised both Hamas and Hezbollah, so cut the crap.

[shira]

65. more than you and from better sources that aren't grossly anti-Israel

1. I'm now posting only links to IDF sites that show photographic and video evidence. You don't even have to read! How about that? You think the photographic and video evidence is questionable now? Here it is again for your viewing (not reading) pleasure. Now please don't argue that this stuff is 'biased' or too partisan. And don't pretend that this isn't convincing evidence that exposes HRW for the partisan and highly political group that it is.

Hezbullah 2006:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2006/Operation%20Change%20of%20Direction%20Video%20Clips

Hamas now:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Hamas_Exploitation_Civilians_Jan_2009.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Hamas+exploitation+of+civilians+as+human+shields+-+Photographic+evidence.htm

2. I have nerve to speak for Gazans and Lebanese? This will be interesting. Do you think they enjoy being exploited as human shields? Is that a cultural thing to you? Please be specific, do tell. Oh wait, you won't, probably because you now realize how stupid that statement was, right?

3. You are anti-Israel, sorry to say. You can pretend that you're fair, balanced, and objective but no one here believes that crap. Sure, you criticize Hamas and Hezbollah, whoopee! Not really so much for their exploitation of human shields, right? Right. Because orgs like HRW and AI don't believe it's so much a problem, so neither do you....you don't want to speak for Gazans or Lebanese, probably thinking it's no big deal for them. And no Violet, you are not speaking up for Arabs against Hizbullah in 2006. You have been eerily silent about that human shield exploitation. Gee, I wonder why....maybe because by speaking up on it you will admit HRW really fucked up in an epic way? Nah....it couldn't be that! It couldn't be that you'd rather defend HRW than criticize them and defend instead the Arab civilians they let down and continue to keep letting down.

4. And for the millionth time HRW has criticized Hamas and Hizbullah? Who on earth do you believe falls for this shit? Of course they criticize the rocket launches and obvious terror attacks. They are BARELY scratching the surface on human shields. You know this and you just won't admit it. How fucking pathetic can you possibly be? The cynical human shield exploitation that Hamas and Hizbullah utilize are MUCH bigger problems, to date, than all their terror attacks put together. But you don't get that, do you? Do you realize how great a problem human-shields really are? This isn't any small matter to be trivialized. Seriously, do you not get what a HUGE issue this is and how it affects the Arab populations surrounding Israel? Do you really think it's such a small problem that has merited (for good reason) very little attention from HRW? Or will you not answer this either?

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Sure, I guess I should be bowing in deference to yr superior objectivity...

..and all-round consistancy and logic. After all, yr relying on totally non-partisan sites like the IDFs one, CAMERA and ngo monitor ;)

1. You've said several times now that anything HRW publish should be automatically dismissed because according to you they're liars. So the same should apply to the IDF if you were being logical and consistant. But it's clearly not a matter of consistancy...

2. Yes, I think you have a real nerve thinking you can speak on behalf of the people of Gaza and Lebanon. Apart from anything else, I would never even presume to speak on behalf of them, nor would I do it on behalf of Israelis. Hell, I wouldn't even presume to speak on behalf of Australians. But what makes you thinking you can speak on behalf of Gazans and the Lebanese really pukeworthy is posts I've seen from you in the past where you've said some pretty horrible things about Gazans which have ended up deleted. If I want to find out about what life in Gaza is like, I wouldn't ask someone like you, I'd ask the only poster here I know of who actually has family in Gaza and who has lived there herself...

3. Cut the crap. I'm not 'anti-Israel', no more than I'm 'anti-American'. My stance on the I/P conflict is that I support a two-state solution where both states are independent and viable, I'm opposed to the occupation, and I oppose violence from both Israel and the Palestinians. I'm critical of both Israel and the Palestinians when it's deserved. That's no more 'anti-Israel' than Cali was demonising Israel when you flung that accusation at her a while back...

4. *sigh* You've been shown many times now that HRW has criticised Hamas for its use of civilians, yet here you are not even 24hrs later after admitting you were wrong trotting out the same old tired bullshit again.

[shira]

71. If you have a problem with an IDF, CAMERA, or NGO Monitor report

then simply demonstrate why the reports I cite here for you (that you claim you read) are not reliable. Simply stating they are partisan or politically biased, or saying they lie, without giving reason to believe so is not proof of anything. At least with the current HRW report, my major beef with it is that they dismiss completely the impact of Hamas human shields, as if that has zero to do with Palestinian casualties caused by IDF attacks in densely populated civilian centers deliberately used by Hamas to maximize civilian casualties. THAT is strong evidence, whether you agree or not (and you never will) that HRW's report is highly disingenuous and shouldn't be taken seriously. At least give plausible reason why you dismiss out of hand each and every report I cite, and that you claim to read.

So I shouldn't speak for Gazan or Lebanese victims of Hamas and Hizbullah because.....they may not feel like victims at all and they actually like what Hamas/Hizbullah does to them, their friends and their families? Are you insane?

3. Cut the crap. I'm not 'anti-Israel', no more than I'm 'anti-American'. My stance on the I/P conflict is that I support a two-state solution where both states are independent and viable, I'm opposed to the occupation, and I oppose violence from both Israel and the Palestinians. I'm critical of both Israel and the Palestinians when it's deserved.

I'd describe myself that way too. How about that?

4. *sigh* You've been shown many times now that HRW has criticised Hamas for its use of civilians, yet here you are not even 24hrs later after admitting you were wrong trotting out the same old tired bullshit again.

Giving human shields less than 1% of their attention in all their reports on Lebanon 2006 or Gaza 2009 is not evidence of a fair and balanced human rights org. For all we know, they devoted a few paragraphs to human shields because some of their donors threatened to stop payment unless HRW started showing more balance in their reports. For all we know, they devoted a few paragraphs to shields to prove to dupes like yourself that they are fair and balanced. To no one's surprise, the crumbs they devoted to Hamas shields is plenty evidence for people like yourself that they are balanced in their criticism of Hamas and the IDF. Once they released such information, they could then go back to their business of blaming Israel 99% and then rely on twits like yourself to defend them for once or twice criticizing Hamas human shield usage.

Lame.

But at least you realize how lame your defense of HRW's "criticism" of Hamas is. You question Human Rights First for not being critical enough of the IDF. What's wrong Violet.....HRF criticizes the IDF but not to your satisfaction and therefore there must be something odd about HRF? How hypocritical can you get? Tell you what, when you see HRF blatantly trying to suppress and deny IDF crimes, and focus 99% of their energy condemning Hamas - only then do you get the right to claim HRF is as worthless as I believe HRW to be. Deal?

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Ah, but you were shown an example of the IDF being dishonest...

I'm not too sure how long yr attention span is, but it was only a few days ago that you were shown that the IDF initially lied about the use of WP in Gaza. Or have you forgotten that one already?

o I shouldn't speak for Gazan or Lebanese victims of Hamas and Hizbullah because.....they may not feel like victims at all and they actually like what Hamas/Hizbullah does to them, their friends and their families? Are you insane?

Reading comprehension would really assist you in comprehending what gets said to you in a post. I told you why you look like an utter dipstick when you take it upon yrself to speak on behalf of Gazans and the Lebanese, and this is what I said: 'But what makes you thinking you can speak on behalf of Gazans and the Lebanese really pukeworthy is posts I've seen from you in the past where you've said some pretty horrible things about Gazans which have ended up deleted. If I want to find out about what life in Gaza is like, I wouldn't ask someone like you, I'd ask the only poster here I know of who actually has family in Gaza and who has lived there herself...'. Do I need to bold it and turn it red or something lame like that so you'll notice it?

I said: ' I'm not 'anti-Israel', no more than I'm 'anti-American'. My stance on the I/P conflict is that I support a two-state solution where both states are independent and viable, I'm opposed to the occupation, and I oppose violence from both Israel and the Palestinians. I'm critical of both Israel and the Palestinians when it's deserved.'

Yr reply: 'I'd describe myself that way too. How about that?'

How about that, indeed. Maybe I've misssed yr "criticism" of Israel for its policies towards the Palestinians, so I'm sure you'll have no trouble giving me a couple of links to where you've done this? I sure hope you've given "criticism" of Israel more than 1% of yr attention in yr posts! ;)

Giving human shields less than 1% of their attention in all their reports on Lebanon 2006 or Gaza 2009 is not evidence of a fair and balanced human rights org.

Is it an interest in rubbery stats, or an overwhelming obsession that causes you to come out with this lame crap? How do you do the number crunching? Like, do you actually read anything or do you run it all through the word count in Word?

Lame.

Yeah, calling me a twit is pretty lame. I could respond in kind by calling you dumber than dogshit, which would have more critical thinking ability than you, but I won't as it's just way wordier than twit, and just like calling me a twit, against the rules...

But at least you realize how lame your defense of HRW's "criticism" of Hamas is.

Another example of lameness - telling other people what they know or realise. Also, I'm not sure which orifice you pulled that 'your defense of HRW's "criticism" of Hamas' crap from, but all I can recall is picking you up on yr repeated bullshit that HRW doesn't criticise Hamas, something that others have also corrected you on in the past. You don't like that they actually have criticised Hamas? That's yr problem, not mine, as I also am critical of Hamas for endangering civilians...

You question Human Rights First for not being critical enough of the IDF. What's wrong Violet.....HRF criticizes the IDF but not to your satisfaction and therefore there must be something odd about HRF? How hypocritical can you get?

I'm thinking to beat the master of hypocrisy, I may have to sign up to one of yr classes. Do you give a Hamasnik discount? ;)

On a serious note, I think it's more than reasonable to wonder why a human rights group would pretty much only mention Gaza in the context of attributing it to rising antisemitism, yet have nothing on the actions of the IDF in Gaza and the many Palestinian dead that resulted. So seeing yr such a whiz with stats, could you break down into percentage the percent of attention that's given to antisemitism in the context of Gaza and also the percentage of attention given to human rights violations against Palestinian civilians carried out by the IDF?

[shira]

85. and you've been shown evidence that HRW lies

The difference between relying on the IDF and HRW is that sources other than the IDF claim Hamas or Hizbullah human shield usage. The IDF also provides solid proof of it as well. All HRW does is deny. The biggest difference b/w the IDF and HRW is that never has the IDF lied like HRW in this instance - see below.

Tell me this after viewing all the evidence for yourself - do you still think HRW was correct in maintaining there was no evidence of Hizbullah human shield exploitation in 2006? At least AI didn't deny it in 2006:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x269215#269745

This isn't just some flaw or mistake, Violet. Three years later and HRW still hasn't retracted or apologized for that bald faced lie.

Say what you will about the IDF, but can you point to an outrageous IDF lie (with no retraction or apology afterward) that remotely approaches this doozy by HRW?

Don't you understand that a lie this big - and this is huge - by HRW must call into question EVERYTHING they've reported wrt I/P?

[Ken Burch]

69. You know perfectly well that nothing the Israeli government is doing

can possibly under any circumstances lead to the Palestinians choosing non-Hamas leadership. You know that everytime the Israeli government uses the tactic of "crushing the foe", all they do is create a harsher and more militant Palestinian leadership.

Why even bother pretending otherwise?

You don't give a damn about the Palestinians. If you did, you'd call for all the settlements in the West Bank to be dismantled NOW, you'd call for an end to collective punishment, as well as for an apology for the settler project and the expulsions.

There can't be any such thing as "peace through victory". In the I/P struggle, there never HAS been. Face reality, shira. The only way to end this is to end the suffering of the Palestinian people. This isn't too much to ask.

[shira]

72. cut the crap, Ken

Would you ever consider excusing Israelis for voting Bibi and Lieberman in due to Hamas/Fatah aggression? You know "everytime Hamas uses the tactic of crushing the foe, all they do is create a harsher and more militant Israeli leadership".

You don't see the double-standard, do you? You're tripping all over yourself offering lame apologetics you'd never consider for the "other" side. Why is that Ken? Why pretend you don't?

And STFU about not caring for Palestinians. I haven't seen you once criticize their regressive leadership for what they have done and are still doing to kids there. I'm all for disbanding settlements and ending occupation.

And are you so ignorant to beleive that Israel doing their part will prompt Hamas to end the subjugation of their Palestinian victims, stop their warmongering efforts, and become encyclopedia and furniture salespeople? No Ken, YOU don't give a shit about Palestinians......if you did you'd realize they need help against Hamas. They are not capable of speaking up for themselves against Hamas and they don't need assholes like yourself ignoring the threat and danger they're under with Hamas in charge.

[Ken Burch]

73. But what you're not getting is that what the Israeli government doing is GOOD for Hamas

The collective punishment helps Hamas.
Operation Cast Lead helps Hamas.

And yes, I do believe that if Israel abandoned its current tactics that it would severely weaken Hamas.

Had it not been for those tactics, Hamas would never have gained the support it continues to hold among Palestinians.

Hamas has only ever grown as a result of Israeli government intransigence. It never gained when Barak was pretending to be for peace in the 90's.

Nothing that any Israeli prime minister or defense minister has done since 2000 has inflicted the slightest damage on Hamas' effectiveness or done the slightest to weaken its appeal. Had Barak done the right thing at Camp David and offered ALL the West Bank, it's extremely unlikely that Hamas would have the level of support it has now.
The parallel is with Northern Ireland, where support for the Provisional IRA would likely have died out if only the demands of the Civil Rights Association had been granted. It was Bloody Sunday that brought the Provos back, just as it's been the Iron Fist in the West Bank and Operation Cast Lead that's brought Hamas back. Had the IDF not launched that war, it's almost certain that Hamas would have suffered major setbacks in the next Palestinian elections. Now, even you would have to concede they're certain to make massive gains.

I don't like Hamas. But I also know what doesn't work against them. I can't understand why you DON'T know.

It's not possible to defeat Hamas militarily, and it's certain that if they were defeated militarily, anything that replaced them would be harder-line. If it's always been that way in the past with Palestinians and their leaders, it has to always be that way in the future.

[shira]

74. wrong

Israel ended occupation of S.Lebanon in 2000 and later that year offered what Clinton called a very credible peace deal. Israel also ended all settlement and occupation activity in Gaza 2005. The para-military leadership in both Lebanon and the Palestinian territories saw all that as a sign of Western weakness and figured that if they ratcheted up terror attacks, they could attain more. You have zero evidence pointing to the fact that if Israel just offered more, all problems would be solved. The facts show you are completely wrong. The citizens of Israel have no reason right NOW to believe that by doing more (unilaterally) they will be left alone in peace.

[shira]

82. what you're not getting is that ANYTHING Israel does is good for Hamas

You are so wrong about Hamas growing due to Israeli actions aimed against Hamas. I pointed out 3 major events from 2000 and 2005. Complete withdrawal from both south Lebanon and Gaza and what President Clinton labeled a very credible peace deal. Hamas and Hizbullah saw those as signs of weakness, Ken. They ratcheted up terror attacks hoping to get more concessions, thinking Israel was weak and tired from all the fighting - and therefore more vulnerable. What will make you understand that these are groups who will NEVER recognize Israel and want to live in peace with them?

Had Barak in 2000 offered ALL the W.Bank? Are you serious? Israel left ALL of Gaza and Hamas gained power as a result.

Tell me this. What makes you think Palestinian leadership of the past 20 years has really and truly been interested in its own land and real peace - to the point of being desperate for it? What evidence do you have for this?

[shira]

50. backing up and responding more directly to this, Violet

Sorry, but when someone dismisses HRW reports without even reading them (which is what you initially did with the HRW report on white phosphorous), calls HRW investigators 'HRW hamasniks' (which you did), dismisses all the eye-witness testimonies in a detailed report as *bogus* (which you did), advocates people not support HRW or AI (which you did), constantly calls them liars (which you did), and regularly posts untrue claims about them (which you have and have been corrected on by both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian posters), then it's a safe bet that there's some irrational hatred and lack of objectivity going on.

1. You dismiss Israeli reports on Hizbullah and Hamas without even reading them
2. You dismiss eye-witness testimonies and visual evidence on Hizbullah and Hamas human shields
3. You cannot admit to HRW lies when they're so blatantly obvious (see below for yet another example)
4. You practically advocate blind adherence to HRW and AI despite evidence they lie
5. You have yet to act outraged by HRW's complete disregard for civilian shields affected and endangered by Hizbullah and Hamas
6. You dismiss human rights orgs automatically, like Human Rights First or the ADL, because they're not hostile enough against Israel

I'd say it's a safe bet there's some irrational thinking going on here and a clear lack of objectivity going on.

At least I supply valid reasons for my attitude against HRW.

You know what's so dangerous about attitudes like yrs? It's the complete lack of willingness to understand that both HRW and AI do by the very nature of their work around the world with victims of human rights abuses, have a heavy responsibility to be open, transparent, politically impartial, and honest. If they're not, their valuable work around the world is negated as all eyewitness testimonies can be dismissed as *bogus*. Yet you continue to do it.

So it's dangerous to point out HRW's double standards WRT human shields in Sri Lanka and Gaza? It's dangerous to show how biased HRW is, just as it was dangerous and still is dangerous to point to the UN human rights council and show how ridiculously biased and hostile that organization was?

It's dangerous to point out the blatant lies in their reports about there being no human shield exploitation by Hizbullah and Hamas? The only thing dangerous there is how HRW repeating this lie endangers the lives of Hamas' Palestinian victims, or Hizbullah's Lebanese victims. THAT is dangerous.

You produce quotes from newspapers and forget that using the standard you set for eyewitness testimonies in Gaza that according to yr logic they're unverifiable, and claim that they're evidence and facts.

Come on now. How can you blame me for knowing my audience? My audience, those who have in the past ALWAYS trusted and relied upon eye-witness accounts that pointed the blame at Israel, should have no problem with Palestinians or Journalists who point the blame at Hamas or Hizbullah. It's simple hypocrisy for someone like yourself to accept some eye-witness accounts and reject others that come from the same sources. The fact is, however, that I go farther than just supplying eyewitness accounts. I've also provided a lot of visual evidence as well - and can even supply to you audio-visual evidence of Hamas admitting to everything they're accused of (and that which HRW still denies).

You produce IDF reports as though they're an impartial source while accusing AI and HRW of not being impartial, and then when picked up on it, you start insisting that sources don't matter.

Those IDF reports are bolstered by a ton of visual evidence. AI and HRW have been lacking seriously in that dept. for years, wouldn't you agree? Even with the visual evidence HRW now provides with WP, there's nothing damning in any of it like there is in the visual evidence against Hamas and Hizbullah. But I'm betting you think HRW's visual evidence against the IDF is somehow stronger than the visual evidence against Hizbullah and Hamas. Rather than make this about me, Violet, how about you - do you trust the visual evidence against the IDF more than you trust the visual evidence against Hizbullah and Hamas? If so, why? I realize it's easier for you to try to keep me on the defensive.

Sorry, but the ADL isn't a human rights organisation, and I'm a bit confused after looking at the Human Rights First website. I saw only one press release about Gaza, yet more than a few on how what was happening in Gaza was causing antisemitism. I know some human rights groups are focused on only one or two areas and haven't got the resources that global ones do, but I found the way Gaza was referenced rather strange...

1. Google human rights organizations. Tell me if whether the ADL shows up on the first page of your search. It does. They are considered a human rights org. Whose human rights do they defend? Do you know?

2. Human Rights First probably isn't funded like HRW, but their reports on I/P are at least balanced and fair. At least they don't make statements like these (from 2006 Lebanon):

"Human Rights Watch found that Hezbollah stored its rockets in bunkers and facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys; ordered its fighters and civilian officials away from populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started; and fired its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages. In the vast majority of airstrikes resulting in civilian deaths investigated by Human Rights Watch, there was no Hezbollah military presence or activity to justify the attack."

Do you really believe that, Violet? Seriously?

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Great. Now yr making up crap about me that I've never said. What next?

1. You dismiss Israeli reports on Hizbullah and Hamas without even reading them

Like fuck I do. I actually read everything that I'm shown a link to.


2. You dismiss eye-witness testimonies and visual evidence on Hizbullah and Hamas human shields


Again, like fuck I do. I haven't even commented on the credibility of those eye-witnesses. All I've done is ask you why you insist that they're credible when you don't apply the same standards to the many eyewitness reports on the use of WP in Gaza....

3. You cannot admit to HRW lies when they're so blatantly obvious (see below for yet another example)

Just like you don't understand the definition of *society*, you have no clue as to what a *lie* is. Lying is saying something that someone knows is untrue. Lying is not unintentionally giving the wrong information. An example of lying is the IDF denying initally that they were using WP in Gaza, a lie that doesn't seem to diminish yr trust in them bringing you *the truth*....

4. You practically advocate blind adherence to HRW and AI despite evidence they lie

See above. Also, you need to learn to read rather than repeating the same blind accusations you already got corrected on in this thread. I do NOT advocate blind adherence to anything, but I dislike seeing blinded partisan zealots trying to destroy the reputation of highly respected organisations....


5. You have yet to act outraged by HRW's complete disregard for civilian shields affected and endangered by Hizbullah and Hamas

Translation: I'm supposed to believe everything you say. And it's a good thing I don't, as you've already been corrected in another thread on yr repeated claims that HRW haven't criticised Hamas for its use of civilians...

6. You dismiss human rights orgs automatically, like Human Rights First or the ADL, because they're not hostile enough against Israel

No, again I'll urge you to try reading what I said and to comment on that, not on things I didn't say. I was very clear about what my opinion was on those two groups, and I didn't say anything about hostility against Israel, not that I for a moment believe that any human right organisation that criticises the IDF for violations of human rights is 'hostile to Israel'...

At least I supply valid reasons for my attitude against HRW.

Valid? That's a joke. Next you'll be telling everyone yr balanced and objective...


I made a comment that I hoped someone as self-professedly progressive as you would have at least started to understand. I'll repeat it: 'You know what's so dangerous about attitudes like yrs? It's the complete lack of willingness to understand that both HRW and AI do by the very nature of their work around the world with victims of human rights abuses, have a heavy responsibility to be open, transparent, politically impartial, and honest. If they're not, their valuable work around the world is negated as all eyewitness testimonies can be dismissed as *bogus*. Yet you continue to do it.'

Now, can you please address what I said instead of copying and pasting it and ignoring the content of what I said?

Come on now. How can you blame me for knowing my audience? My audience, those who have in the past ALWAYS trusted and relied upon eye-witness accounts that pointed the blame at Israel, should have no problem with Palestinians or Journalists who point the blame at Hamas or Hizbullah. It's simple hypocrisy for someone like yourself to accept some eye-witness accounts and reject others that come from the same sources. The fact is, however, that I go farther than just supplying eyewitness accounts. I've also provided a lot of visual evidence as well - and can even supply to you audio-visual evidence of Hamas admitting to everything they're accused of (and that which HRW still denies).

Sorry. I made the very stupid assumption that when you argue something, you would use things to support it that *you* thought was credible evidence, based on yr criteria you set for credible evidence when it comes to human rights organisations and their eye-witness testimony. I was wrong. I've never ever posted anything to support an argument of mine that I don't believe is credible myself, and that you not only did it, but seem to be proud that you did so strongly indicates that you have absolutely no desire for any sort of genuine discussion...

Those IDF reports are bolstered by a ton of visual evidence. AI and HRW have been lacking seriously in that dept. for years, wouldn't you agree? Even with the visual evidence HRW now provides with WP, there's nothing damning in any of it like there is in the visual evidence against Hamas and Hizbullah. But I'm betting you think HRW's visual evidence against the IDF is somehow stronger than the visual evidence against Hizbullah and Hamas. Rather than make this about me, Violet, how about you - do you trust the visual evidence against the IDF more than you trust the visual evidence against Hizbullah and Hamas? If so, why? I realize it's easier for you to try to keep me on the defensive.

That's strange. I could have sworn the comment of mine you were replying to was about you accusing HRW and AI of not being partial, while portraying the IDF as impartial, het you trot out some stuff that has nothing to do with that. Wait, it's not my imagination. Here's what I said: 'You produce IDF reports as though they're an impartial source while accusing AI and HRW of not being impartial, and then when picked up on it, you start insisting that sources don't matter.'


Anyway, assuming that you've even bothered to look at the photos in the HRW report, could you go through each of them and explain exactly why you don't think they're in any way compelling at all? You can have a five minute headstart so you can rush over to CAMERA or that humanightsmnonitor to memorise what those bastions of impartiality and truth have to say ;)

1. Google human rights organizations. Tell me if whether the ADL shows up on the first page of your search. It does. They are considered a human rights org. Whose human rights do they defend? Do you know?

For crying out loud. Google's a search engine, not a list of human rights organisations. Someone writes metadata that has ADL + human rights organisation in there and it'll show up as a result on Google. Human rights organisations investigate human rights violations, and ADL doesn't do that....

2. Human Rights First probably isn't funded like HRW, but their reports on I/P are at least balanced and fair.

Do you seriously think that it's being balanced and fair not to report on human rights violations by the IDF against Palestinians in Gaza, yet have the time and the resources to have several reports there ascribing antisemitism to what happened in Gaza? That's a real strange idea of balanced and fair you've got there...

[shira]

70. your hypocrisy and double standards on clear display Violet

Do you seriously think that it's being balanced and fair not to report on human rights violations by the IDF against Palestinians in Gaza, yet have the time and the resources to have several reports there ascribing antisemitism to what happened in Gaza? That's a real strange idea of balanced and fair you've got there...

Human Rights First criticizes both Hamas and the IDF. Oh wait, they don't blast Israel 95% and Hamas 5% like HRW, so that's not balanced enough for you? Tell me please, why is it that when you see HRW devoting less than 1% of their efforts criticizing Hamas human shields, you think that counts as balanced criticism but when you don't see enough of HRF criticiziing the IDF, it's not balanced enough for you?

Now to answer your question.

'You know what's so dangerous about attitudes like yrs? It's the complete lack of willingness to understand that both HRW and AI do by the very nature of their work around the world with victims of human rights abuses, have a heavy responsibility to be open, transparent, politically impartial, and honest. If they're not, their valuable work around the world is negated as all eyewitness testimonies can be dismissed as *bogus*. Yet you continue to do it.'

What's the question here? I've already supplied a lot of evidence showing their reports are false and that they neither retracted or apologized for those false reports. This means they are not impartial and yes, everything they do is suspect. Tell you what, would you like for me to supply you with 3 outright lies, proof that they are lies when I supply strong evidence showing they are lies, their failure to retract and their failure to apologize? Would that do it for you? Are you up to the challenge?

[Violet_Crumble]

79. There's a lot of things you don't understand...

And the definitions of hypocrisy and double standard can now be added to quite a few others that you clearly don't understand....

Human Rights First criticizes both Hamas and the IDF. Oh wait, they don't blast Israel 95% and Hamas 5% like HRW, so that's not balanced enough for you?

Weren't you just ranting about this exact same thing in a post I just replied to? The point is that apart from one press release, I couldn't find anything else on Gaza at all. It's like OCL never happened apart from the times they mention it in relation to a rise of antisemitism. I just thought it was a strange thing to be omitting or not paying any attention to...

btw, I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, and I hope yr sitting down when you read this, but as I angsted away in response to yr earnest cries for people to stop supporting Amnesty International, I took another look at the Human Rights First site to see if it'd be a good replacement (nah, as it doesn't focus on the issues that are most important to me, which are regional ones in this part of the world). Imagine my complete shock when I saw that they appear to hold Amnesty International in high regard! We must stand together and speak on behalf of all victims of human rights abuses around the world and crush Amnesty International and those like Human Rights First who legitimise their *evil* (okay, we can downgrade that to *twisted and sick* if you want) ways with their talking about Amnesty International like it's some sort of highly respected global human rights organisation, and don't speak the TrUtH about those Hamasniks!! ;)

[shira]

83. the hypocrisy is clear

Tell me this....if a human rights org focused an inordinate amount of energy criticizing Hamas and Hizbullah, and only criticized the IDF sometimes in order to appear balanced, would you have a problem with that?


I have a problem with AI and HRW's very partisan and hostile approach to Israel. I realize, like HRF, that AI and HRW's work elsewhere around the globe is important. But let's face it, what is the end result of their efforts against Israel? Look at the travesty that is the UN. Look at the media. If not in intent, the effect is very clear. Israel is very effectively acting as the world's scapegoat, turning attention away from hotspots all around the globe - and who does this serve politically Violet, have you ever thought of that? Do you think all this attention to Israel (most of it undeserved and unfounded as you well know) is good for oppressed people elsewhere around the world? Of course you don't and let's not pretend otherwise.

Can you admit that countries like Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, N.Korea, China, etc... like nothing more politically than for attention to be turned away from them and onto a scapegoat like Israel? Suppose there were no Israel and a country like France was the scapegoat instead, or the UK, Australia, or the USA. You don't agree that it would be rather easy for the rest of the world to focus massive amounts of energy on those countries, and make them out to be illegitimate pariahs for their own purposes? All in the interests of "human rights"? It wouldn't be too difficult as none of those other countries are perfect. Granted, it's easier with Israel since deep-seeded hatred of Jews is something that has always been a common denominator of most nations.

[LeftishBrit]

31. I donate to and support AI - and I'm fairly sure that Hamas and Hezbollah supporters don't

AI condemn the actions of Hamas frequently (I've given several examples in previous posts) and are critical of practically every country.

[shira]

52. then where has AI been all along to condemn in the harshest manner, human shield

exploitation by both Hamas and Hizbullah?

Gazan and Lebanese citizens are still waiting for the world to really take notice of these human rights violations.

[LeftishBrit]

55. They have condemned government-sponsored torture and killing of Palestinians..

and attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians.

However, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this, because I think we're coming to it from different perspectives. I get the impression that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is VERY important to you, and that your views on human rights and related organizations depend first and foremost on their taking certain stances, and avoiding others, on I/P. The I/P conflict is importnant to me too, or I wouldn't be on this forum; but really my interest in Amnesty International and other human rights organizations is not linked to, or dependent, on my concerns about Israel or Palestine (there are dedicated I/P peace organizations that I support over the latter). I support Amnesty International because they oppose the death penalty and torture; because of their campaigns over Burma which is a very key issue for me; and several other important issues worldwide. And most of all for their adoption of 'prisoners of conscience'. These issues and activities are very crucial to me, and I consider the rejection of such organizations because they are considered as having the wrong views about Israel as in the category of 'you might be letting pro-Israel views interfere with your progressiveness if...' (see my post on that topic a few days ago, re both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian views).

But I really don't think that anyone here is going to influence others to support, or not support, AI or any other human rights organization; and probably I should leave the topic, as I'm otherwise likely to get very emotional for reasons that have little to do with the topics of the I/P forum.

[shira]

56. thanks, LB

Do you agree with me that AI has for some reason ignored or tried to suppress evidence of Hamas and Hizbullah human shields, and that continuing to do so is in effect, if not intent, a great disservice (to say the least) to innocent Arabs in that region who are unable to speak up for themselves?

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I think you must have missed LB's last paragraph...

But I really don't think that anyone here is going to influence others to support, or not support, AI or any other human rights organization; and probably I should leave the topic, as I'm otherwise likely to get very emotional for reasons that have little to do with the topics of the I/P forum.

I don't know why anyone on reading something like that would go straight into asking her to answer more questions...

[shira]

75. give it a rest

I take no pleasure in slamming AI. Unlike yourself, I see the damage they have done WRT their efforts in the I/P conflict and it's very upsetting to me too.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Sheez, no need to get all snotty on me...

All I was doing was politely hinting that yr starting to hound people, so obsessed you are with yr pathetic crusade to slag off AI...

[shira]

86. what's more pathetic? my criticism of AI and HRW, or your blind support for them

given overwhelming evidence against their bullshit claims?

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Shira! I found a human rights group I bet you'd approve of!

Americans Against Hate

nyuck nyuck...

[azurnoir]

16. wow it's in red so it must be the truth.

especially when they have no links


but really I wanted to address something else and because it's past the 48 hr limit I will do it here
you posted this video a few days back and I watched it today, I think this gem should be posted in DU's video forum so it can be shared with all of DU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcHwyW9xOyI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x268471#268614

[shira]

17. google is your friend

do you see the quotes and the sources?

google.

Here, I'll start you off. Very first article cited...you can thank me later:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28refugees.html

And the second article:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807fa_fact?currentPage=2

I think you get the point now.

If you need more than just "words", how about some visual evidence here?
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/human_shields.htm

[azurnoir]

18. Oh yes I am convinced

and especially that last link Halevy is the word of G-d nearly, well the first one published two years after the fact too. Tell me does Israel count them as "voluntary" human sheilds too?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

23. Yep add that one to your list 4shur n/t

[shira]

26. here's more evidence to ignore

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2006/Operation%20Change%20of%20Direction%20Video%20Clips

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Wait. You claimed in another thread that u don't hold differing standards when it comes to evidence

In the other thread on WP, you dismissed eye-witness accounts as 'unverifiable', yet here you are posting quotes from various newspaper articles and touting them as *evidence*. And you dismiss major and reputable human rights groups as liars and biased even though they aren't a party to the conflict, yet here you are touting what the IDF says as *evidence*, even though the IDF is a party to the conflict and has been guilty of lying in the past.

It looks very much like the only standard being used is that anything critical of Israel's actions is unverifiable and biased, and anything critical of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is the exact opposite. It's the 'I believe what I want to believe' syndrome at work, and in being so invested in it, you haven't realised that both AI and HRW are rightly critical of ANY party involved in the conflict that violates the human rights of civilians, be they Israeli, Palestinian or Lebanese...

[shira]

33. you can't be serious

I'm using "evidence" that is always acceptable by you, HRW, and others who trust HRW. They use eyewitness accounts that people like yourself accept without question. Now it's you who has a problem with that for some odd reason.

Need I remind you that the photo and video evidence against Hezbollah makes for a STRONGER case than the one HRW and AI put together against Israel? Along with the bogus "eyewitness" accounts - and we know very well there were these bogus "eyewitness" accounts in cases like al-Dura, let's not forget that okay - there's really no fair comparison, now is there? Can HRW and AI put together a case with as much photographic and video evidence to support their claims against Israel? To this date, they have not. Is there COUNTER-evidence against HRW and AI's claims that call into question their conclusions? Of course! Does this COUNTER-evidence exist against Israel's case too? No, it doesn't. There's no comparison, now is there?

Now rather than question my use of sources, I want to know why all of a sudden you have a problem with a collection of evidence that actually makes for a stronger case (with photos and video) than the ones you normally accept without question?

Where is your concern for the victims that Hamas and Hezbollah continue to exploit to this day?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I am serious. I want to know why yr using a different standard for eyewitness accounts...

My post was pretty simple to understand. I'm questioning the way you have different standards for what constitutes *unverifiable* when it comes to eye-witness accounts. You automatically dismissed eye-witness testimonies in the HRW report on the use of white phosphorous, yet automatically accept quotes in various media sources as being solid and the only common theme that keeps on appearing is if it's something critical of Israel, it's dismissed out of hand as being bogus, but if it's critical of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah then it's the Truth.....

[shira]

37. I answered you in the last post, what's so difficult to understand? Please re-read.

I then asked you some questions and you still refuse to answer. This works two ways if you're really interested in a serious discussion.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. No, you didn't explain why you were using a different standard at all...

You tried to make out that you were merely providing some quotes that met *my* criteria, not anything else, when in following posts in this thread yr insisting that those quotes are hard evidence. I reread yr post and you haven't explained at all why you find those quotes from various media sources to be solid evidence, while automatically dismissing eye-witness testimonies given to HRW. Maybe you'd like to copy and paste where you think you explained this discrepancy? Or then again, I'm suspecting that you won't...

[shira]

41. I'm not using a different standard from YOUR perspective or from HRW's perspective

or even my perspective.

In fact, besides just these eyewitness accounts - which are about all you and HRW rely upon - I've also included credible photo and video evidence that supports these eyewitness accounts. I don't know how anyone like yourself or HRW could so casually dismiss this evidence when it is actually stronger than evidence HRW provides.

Those quotes are solid evidence - see, I'm answering your question directly now - because of all the video and photographic evidence that also accompanies those quotes. Also, there exists no reliable counter-evidence that calls into question these allegations.

OTOH, when all you have are eyewitness accounts with no accompanying video or photographic evidence - and those eyewitness accounts can be called into serious question (to the point of dismissing those claims) with counter-evidence, that is what we call unsupported, unverified, or questionable claims.

Do you now understand the difference?

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Yr definately using a different standard from yr perspective...

In fact, besides just these eyewitness accounts - which are about all you and HRW rely upon -

I thought when you said you'd read the HRW report on the use of WP, that you'd actually read it. Coz if you had, you'd have spotted all the photos and the physical evidence that supported the eye-witness testimonies...

Those quotes are solid evidence - see, I'm answering your question directly now - because of all the video and photographic evidence that also accompanies those quotes.

Huh? The quotes you posted were from a variety of newspapers and there weren't any videos or photos with them....

OTOH, when all you have are eyewitness accounts with no accompanying video or photographic evidence - and those eyewitness accounts can be called into serious question (to the point of dismissing those claims) with counter-evidence, that is what we call unsupported, unverified, or questionable claims.

Do you now understand the difference?

Yeah, I understand two things. One, that you actually didn't read the HRW report on WP after all. And two, that you didn't provide a shred of counter-evidence either before or after you dismissed every eye-witness testimony in the HRW report of being unverifiable.

Who's the 'we' in yr second last sentence? Somehow I'm pretty sure 'we' aren't in any way impartial or any sort of expert in eye-witness testimony like HRW are...

[shira]

45. let's review

I have included photo and video proof in this thread (see posts #14, 17, 26) that supports those quotes and calls HRW and AI integrity into serious question. I have also mentioned the fabricated eyewitness quotes that both AI and HRW used in cases like al-Dura. You see, when orgs like HRW and AI have lied in the past and have failed to retract and/or apologize for such actions, it leads objective people to question their future reports on the same subject. When you come across serial, unrepentant liars do you have good reason to just forgive and forget the past and start to immediately and fully trust them?

And I did read the report. Photos of spent WP shells are not proof of intent to harm civilians. When the report makes it seem as though any and all IDF activity within civilian areas is unwarranted, and it's well known Hamas uses these civilian areas to their military advantage, it's hard to take HRW seriously. Maybe it would be nice for them to once or twice concede that the IDF has good reason to go into civilian areas to fight Hamas, but in some instances the IDF response was disproportional. Nope, rather than be fair and balanced, it's all inbalanced and the casual uninformed observer is to believe the IDF never has any good reason to attack within civilian areas due to the fact "no evidence" exists that shows Hamas exploits civilians for their nefarious purposes.

Tell me, why doesn't HRW admit or concede that the IDF did a commendable job trying to limit civilian casualties in "MOST" instances and it is only in "SOME" instances that HRW is taking them to task? They do not mention the flyers, the phone calls, other warnings, aborted attacks, or anything else that could possibly paint the IDF in a moral light. This is expected propaganda from Hamas, but I think we should expect better from HRW. It seems you don't.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. So IDF reports are *proof*?

I noticed that in the WP thread where you announced you'd wait for the IDF report to come out to find out the *truth*. As has been pointed out to you more times than once now, you can't dismiss politically impartial human rights groups like HRW and AI as being biased when you turn around and present a report from a party to a conflict that's defininately not politically impartial as *proof*. It's illogical...

Despite yr protestations, you have yet to provide a single shred of proof that either HRW or AI have ever lied, and by lying I mean stating something that they know to be untrue. See, both organisations have made errors in the past, and they correct them when they become aware of them. That's not lying. And they're not lying just because they don't say some crap like 'The IDF did a commendable job trying to limit civilian casualties in most instances.' and you don't like it because they won't trot out the line you want them to. In that case, they'd actually be dishonest if they said that, as there's nothing in what's come to light about what happened in Gaza to suggest they did even an average job in trying to limit civilian casualties in most cases....

And I did read the report. Photos of spent WP shells are not proof of intent to harm civilians.

*sigh* This is what irritates me when you ignore something that's already been explained to you and keep on repeating the same thing over and over. It was explained to you in the WP thread that there doesn't have to be an intent to harm civilians. It's knowing that harm could come to civilians and ignoring that which makes the use of WP indiscriminate, which is why HRW have said that the IDF used WP indiscriminately and didn't say that there was an intent to harm civilians. But you can go back and read all that in the other thread rather than having me repeat it for you...

A question for you. Do you think that when it comes to yr views that yr objective or balanced or fair? I'm just wondering as you said 'it leads objective people to...' in one sentence...

[shira]

53. if the evidence is strong and cannot be countered rationally, then yes, IDF reports are proof

I noticed that in the WP thread where you announced you'd wait for the IDF report to come out to find out the *truth*. As has been pointed out to you more times than once now, you can't dismiss politically impartial human rights groups like HRW and AI as being biased when you turn around and present a report from a party to a conflict that's defininately not politically impartial as *proof*. It's illogical...

If in the past HRW and AI have been known to lie or suppress facts and the IDF has "the goods" and can prove rather convincingly and without any question that their claims are true, then yes - it's quite reasonable to come to my conclusions.

Despite yr protestations, you have yet to provide a single shred of proof that either HRW or AI have ever lied, and by lying I mean stating something that they know to be untrue. See, both organisations have made errors in the past, and they correct them when they become aware of them. That's not lying.

Of course I've provided proof, and here's one (it's a real doozy):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x269230#269277

Here are others if you're interested and you won't just dismiss them because you think the source is 'biased':
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_and_hrw_claims_discredited_in_detailed_report

And a great quote here:
"The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack."

I've noticed you don't even attempt to defend such quotes by HRW. You realize something is very wrong. So why not just admit it?

And they're not lying just because they don't say some crap like 'The IDF did a commendable job trying to limit civilian casualties in most instances.' and you don't like it because they won't trot out the line you want them to. In that case, they'd actually be dishonest if they said that, as there's nothing in what's come to light about what happened in Gaza to suggest they did even an average job in trying to limit civilian casualties in most cases....

Come on now.

Compare IDF activity to NATO forces or any other military in similar combat conditions and all the civilian casualties in those conflicts and the IDF comes out on top every single time. Factor in the overwhelming evidence that shows Hamas exploits human shields moreso than any NATO enemy and the IDF's effort in Gaza is definitely more commendable than any other military. Of course, when HRW casually claims no "evidence of Hamas human shields", that can certainly lead to much different conclusions - wouldn't you say?

*sigh* This is what irritates me when you ignore something that's already been explained to you and keep on repeating the same thing over and over. It was explained to you in the WP thread that there doesn't have to be an intent to harm civilians. It's knowing that harm could come to civilians and ignoring that which makes the use of WP indiscriminate, which is why HRW have said that the IDF used WP indiscriminately and didn't say that there was an intent to harm civilians. But you can go back and read all that in the other thread rather than having me repeat it for you...

And as I wrote to you earlier, those photos by HRW do not prove indiscriminate intent. HRW admits Palestinian fighters in those areas. Perhaps the use of WP in those particular photos was proper due to a legitimate military objective. Remember, when fighters are deployed among civilians, that area is a legitimate military target. The question is whether in that case, the IDF's use of WP was "proportional" to the particular military objective they were hoping to achieve. How many fighters were there? What kind of threat were they posing (were they shooting rockets at Israel)? Too many factors there to determine whether the WP usage in those photos was "indiscriminate". If you believe HRW and that there was never any human shield usage, or Hamas military in the vicinity, you could definitely arrive at a different conclusion.

Of course, if you still believe HRW is credible despite all the evidence showing they're not, then you'll pretty much agree to anything they claim. The fact is, there's no way to know whether those photos prove indiscriminate usage. Evidence against that exists showing the IDF was very careful in Gaza despite Hamas' deliberate exploitation of human shields.

A question for you. Do you think that when it comes to yr views that yr objective or balanced or fair? I'm just wondering as you said 'it leads objective people to...' in one sentence...

Yes.

I don't make unsupported claims and allegations. I've supplied more than enough evidence that makes my case.

Do you believe you're objective, balanced, and fair? If so, why?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. But the HRW report's evidence is strong and cannot be countered rationally, but you dismissed it...

...because you accused HRW of lying. But when it comes to the IDF and a clear case of dishonesty, it's a whole different story. Talk about double standards!

Okay, you actually do think yr objective and fair and balanced. What a joke. Yr anything but...

And you have indeed made unsupported claims and allegations. One is the one you repeated again and again even after various people corrected you that HRW has never criticised Hamas for its use of civilians, and the other is in the WP thread where you not once but twice claimed that a Palestinian NGO had supplied most of the information and eye-witness testimony for the report. Oh, and let's not forget that doozy of yrs where you referred to HRW as 'HRW Hamasniks'....

[shira]

64. their report on WP is not strong, sorry, but seeing WP from a distance or in pics

is not evidence of intent. What they have other than "eyewitness testimony" that has been debunked in the past is nothing more than a few pics of empty WP shells and remains. A few pics of airborn WP is not a case.

You think you're fair and objective? Why then are you pretending there is no problem at all with HRW's 2006 report about Hizbullah human shields? Oh right, you won't answer this one. Typical.

And enough about your bringing up one report about 2-3 paragraphs long showing HRW mentioning human shields, as if 2-3 paragraphs balances out all of their heavily biased reporting. Do you understand that their 2006 and 2009 reports trivialize or ignore the impact of human shields altogether? No, you don't - but I'm certain you'll trot out that one report over and over again as if that shows balance in HRW reporting.

As for HRW hamasniks, what do you call it when they try to suppress evidence of human shields in 2006 and now 2009, as though there aren't any to explain civilian casualties? Not reporting on human shields, or giving it its due diligence is not only unfair to Hamas' Palestinian victims, but it gives Hamas every right to believe that they can keep doing it as long as they'd like. It ensures that the practice keeps going, doesn't it? Right, don't answer - you never do.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. It's a lot stronger than the nonsense yr repeating again and again...

Evidence of intent? Why are you still carrying on with this when I explained to you in another thread that it's not about intent but about using WP in built up residential areas and being aware that there are civilians being placed in danger? I wish you'd take the time to read the HRW report properly before wasting time going off on tangents with claims that are not true...

Which eyewitness accounts in the HRW report have been debunked in the past? That makes no sense at all. The report only just came out, so how were they debunked in the past if they didn't exist till this report was done?

Yr totally incorrect trying to claim that there's nothing but a few pics of empty WP shells and remains in the HRW report. Unfortunately we're not allowed to post photos, but in the pdf of the report there's pictures of the school under fire, and also the UNRWA compound. There's also photos of the devastation caused at the hospital, as well as holes in homes from where the shells hit them....

You think you're fair and objective?

Never claimed I was. Yr the one who made the astounding announcement that you were, remember?

Why then are you pretending there is no problem at all with HRW's 2006 report about Hizbullah human shields?

I don't recall mentioning that report at all. Can you point me to where I did please?

And enough about your bringing up one report about 2-3 paragraphs long showing HRW mentioning human shields, as if 2-3 paragraphs balances out all of their heavily biased reporting.

The issue is you engaged in dishonesty by claiming HRW hadn't criticised Hamas, when in fact both them and AI do. Don't start any mindless crap about 'balance' when you rely on websites that never ever say anything critical of the IDF at all...

As for HRW hamasniks, what do you call it when they try to suppress evidence of human shields in 2006 and now 2009, as though there aren't any to explain civilian casualties?

WTF does any of that babbling have to do with you labelling investigators 'HRW hamasniks'? I wish you'd at least pretend to make at least a bit of sense when you post...

[shira]

76. those pics by HRW do not even show indiscriminate use of WP

Past eyewitness accounts supposedly recorded by HRW dating back to Muhammad al-Dura, Jenin, etc. have been debunked.

A school under fire and a few holes in roofs, damage at hospitals, etc.. do not, once again, prove indiscriminate usage of WP.

And why haven't you claimed you are fair and objective? That's interesting. Do you think you're partisan, highly political, and therefore biased?

Do you have any problem at all with HRW's 2006 report?

I didn't engage in any dishonesty about HRW's tendency in their reports, like the current one, to not mention the effect of human shields. That they mentioned it, or better gave short shrift to it, in past reports does not excuse their complete ommission of it in their most current report. It is HIGHLY disingenuous of HRW to not mention human shields when it comes to Israeli military ops conducted against Hamas - when it is Hamas' main strategy to maximize civilian deaths and use such deaths as PR coups to help fight against (or slow down greatly) the IDF in its efforts. How would you like for an organization to give a little mention to IDF aggression the past 40 years against Palestinians but in a report harshly critical of Hamas, not mention the "real causes" or "context" of recent Hamas aggression? It would be just a tad dishonest to you, wouldn't it?

When HRW is actively working in the best interests of Hamas and doing their best to ignore or greatly suppress evidence of human shields and therefore work AGAINST Palestinian human rights, call it whatever you'd like. It's disgusting. Maybe I need a new term other than HRW Hamasniks, so help me by offering up a better description of faux human rights defenders who are working against the human rights of Palestinian victims of Hamas shield exploitation?

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Some of them very much support the case that there was...

Besides, I was correcting yr incorrect claim that all that was in the report was a few photos of spent shells. That wasn't true at all...

Past eyewitness accounts supposedly recorded by HRW dating back to Muhammad al-Dura, Jenin, etc. have been debunked.

Yr not making any sense at all right now. You were talking about the WP report and the eyewitness testimonies contained in that and said: 'What they have other than "eyewitness testimony" that has been debunked in the past is nothing more than a few pics of empty WP shells and remains.'

So assuming some old eyewitness accounts (I wouldn't know, as I haven't ever read them) have been 'debunked', what I want to know is which eye-witnesses in the current HRW report on WP were also eyewitnesses in past reports? Can you give me a list of names please?

A school under fire and a few holes in roofs, damage at hospitals, etc.. do not, once again, prove indiscriminate usage of WP.

No, but they put forward a strong case that there was indiscriminate use, which is why HRW is calling for an independent investigation, something you appear to be very opposed to, having made up yr mind at the outset that the IDF could not possibly have done this....

And why haven't you claimed you are fair and objective?

Uh, because most of the time I prefer to discuss the actual conflict itself than get into sillybugger games...

I didn't engage in any dishonesty about HRW's tendency in their reports, like the current one, to not mention the effect of human shields.

You did. You were dishonest when you repeated on several occassions the false accusation that HRW don't criticise Hamas for their use of civilians.


When HRW is actively working in the best interests of Hamas...

Yep, nothing highly partisan, biased, or totally delusional about you, Shira! ;)

[shira]

84. no they don't

So assuming some old eyewitness accounts (I wouldn't know, as I haven't ever read them) have been 'debunked', what I want to know is which eye-witnesses in the current HRW report on WP were also eyewitnesses in past reports? Can you give me a list of names please?

You wrote that you read every link cited for you. I cited this one for you before, which shows many HRW eyewitness claims discredited (and worse, they were never retracted or apologized for by HRW):
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_and_hrw_claims_discredited_in_detailed_report

After you read that, tell me why I shouldn't use those past instances as a basis for having predeterminations on any future HRW reports. If you say you want to focus only on current HRW reports, that's fine too, let's do it....so long as we focus on current NGO-monitor reports for the same reason (to deconstruct / criticize what's in those reports), and not focus on the past. Deal?

I addressed the "indiscriminate" claim in another post of this thread. HRW has not made a case for it. Especially given the fact that nowhere in their current report did they mention that those densely populated areas had Hamas fighters intentionally deployed there and engaged in intense battles with the IDF. HRW cannot be taken seriously by trying to get people to think that the IDF was just shooting WP shells for no reason in civilian areas, but that is EXACTLY what HRW tries to convey in their warped analysis.

And I'm not dishonest with regard to HRW and its criticism of Hamas human shields. I wasn't aware of the very few instances in which HRW chose to criticize Hamas for their victimization of Palestinians. And as I've written several times now, their current report on WP doesn't mention at all that Palestinian civilian casualties were - in most every case - due to Hamas battle strategies and tactics that deliberately put civilians in danger (making it THEIR fault, not the IDF).

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. You'd think a nation that resourceful, brilliant, industrious and hard-working could support itself.

[azurnoir]

24. well ya you would but .....n/t

[shira]

25. they may have to, due to HRW's success at transferring Hezbollah and Hamas's

merciless cruelty against their own people onto Israelis. They've done a masterful job at this. It's still working and there's no sign of it slowing down. Of course there's no way they could get away with this without a little help from some friends.

Gotta give credit where it's due, right?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. An American taxpayer can dream, right?

[LeftishBrit]

6. Maybe. But I believe that there is a massive diversity of opinion in Israel...

and I like to think that the balance of it can change. Like it did in America.

I like 'Yes We Can' better than 'No They Can't.'

[geek tragedy]

8. One of two things have to happen:

1) Kadima has to get serious about the two-state solution and promise to implement it when it tries to take down Bibi in the next elections; or

2) Meretz needs to quadruple in size.

[LeftishBrit]

19. I think there's a reasonable chance of one of these

I'd prefer (2) but (1) seems more likely. Even just on political grounds. There's a difference between Kadima as incumbent minority government, trying to appease Shas and prove that they're tough to swing voters considering Likud, and (potentially) Kadima as opposition party trying to defeat a discredited Likud coalition and improve ties with a liberal American government.

We shall see.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. Remember who founded Kadima?

Kadima was founded because the Israeli Labour party - the party currently lead by Ehud Barak - was viewed as too dovish.

I wouldn't place great hopes in it advocating making the concessions that peace would necessitate.

[LeftishBrit]

7. She's right...

though she herself has in the past been prepared to serve in a coalition that included the bastard.

Hope he'll soon be on the way out - or better still on his way 'inside' (jail).

[Ken Burch]

11. Beityenu is just going to keep on growing and growing and growing

And it'll make the other parties be just like it(or almost like it, like the BNP has made your "Labour" government repudiate all notions of humanitarian treatment of asylum seekers and immigrants).

How could there be any possible future for Israel that won't be permanently right wing?

They've all drunk the "crush the foe" koolaid and I can't see them detoxing from it.

[azurnoir]

12. Well perhaps and hopefully what Lieberman has ruined

is the game by which there was a pretense of negotiations while the settlements were constantly expanding, this is the only "silver lining" of Israel's new government that I can see

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. Or... he has unmasked the farce of Israeli "peace efforts."

[Alamuti Lotus]

30. so Lieberman should just carpetbomb Gaza to get back on her good side?

[Ken Burch]

68. Yet ANOTHER reason the Labor Party should NEVER have joined that coalition

It's THEIR fault that Lieberman is in power at this moment.

Hopefully, Labor will now do the decent thing and dissolve itself, as it can now never be a progressive, pro-peace party again and its supporters deserve to have such a party to join.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

77. Labor was never "progressive" vis-a-vis Palestine.

Labor-led gov'ts were renowned for "there's no such thing as a Palestinian," the Iron fist, "break their bones," and exponential settlement expansion.

This is the big myth in I/P.