he Anti Human 'Palestinian' Arabs use of 'Human rights' organizations
The Anti Human 'Palestinian' Arabs use of 'Human rights' organizations
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258
April 29, 2008
* HRW accuses Israel of “collective punishment” of Palestinians in a way that is inconsistent with both international law and past and present usage of the term by HRW itself.
* HRW’s focus on Israel in 2007 dropped to 2005 levels after 2006 marked a return to the extreme bias of the 2000-2004 period. The change in 2007 allowed more resources to be focused on countries committing major human rights violations.
* However, disproportionate emphasis on Israel continued, with major reports covering 400 pages in 2007, using the same methodologies as in 2006 that lack credibility.
* This contrasts with the limited attention on human rights violations in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the region.
* Israel was the focus of more multimedia items (audio, video, graphics) than any other country in the region.
* Reports on Israel continue to be based on unverifiable evidence provided by “eyewitnesses,” selected journalists, and other inappropriate sources. In some cases hard evidence has shown this testimony to be blatantly untrue.
* HRW mentioned one or more of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers in a total of only 6 publications. Of these, only two refer to them by name; the other references are in passing.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_s_report_on_hrw_bias_and_double_standards_continue
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57234
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php/index.php?pageId=12559
One would have thought that after so many heinous acts, Amnesty International, which claims to be "Protecting Human Rights Around the World", would have issued 16 reports condemning each and every one of these terrible acts of Palestinian terrorism. In fact, AI issued only one report and even though it pertained to the Park Hotel slaughter, the heading "Deliberate Killing of Civilians is Never Justified" was pretty benign and totally belied the atrocity of this appalling act. The three short paragraphs was almost non-committal. While apparently recognizing the massacre as "a grave breach of the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law", Amnesty then refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization, but made a pathetic plea to "armed Palestinian groups" to cease killing civilians.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/4025
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/2582
The report does not make use of the latest research on what happened in Jenin (accepted by the UN, the vast majority of the international press and governments) and does not define its terms when talking about international law. Amnesty secretary-general Irene Khan has been quoted on numerous occasions talking of 'war crimes'... To sprinkle the vocabulary of 'war crimes' in reports is misleading and reveals an ideological bias...
Moreover, there is a disturbing amount of inaccurate and anecdotal evidence used in the report...
http://www.jcpa.org/ngo/ngo-4-AI.html
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=253
The Human Rights Watch Report
A Point-by-Point Examination of the Document Titled "The 'Hoax' That Wasn't"
On December 19, 2006, the international advocacy organization Human Rights Watch issued a detailed, intensively researched report unequivocally affirming the factuality of an intentional Israeli attack on Red Cross ambulances at Qana on July 23. The report (titled "The 'Hoax' That Wasn't") by Human Rights Watch was created specifically to counter the claims made in my original essay titled "The Red Cross Ambulance Incident."
This commentary is a response to Human Rights Watch's new allegations.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/
The report does not make use of the latest research on what happened in Jenin (accepted by the UN, the vast majority of the international press and governments) and does not define its terms when talking about international law. Amnesty secretary-general Irene Khan has been quoted on numerous occasions talking of 'war crimes'... To sprinkle the vocabulary of 'war crimes' in reports is misleading and reveals an ideological bias...
Moreover, there is a disturbing amount of inaccurate and anecdotal evidence used in the report...
http://www.jcpa.org/ngo/ngo-4-AI.html
August 21, 2006
Human Rights Watch, Watched "Who will guard the guardians?" asked Roman satirist Juvenal. Now we must ask, who is watching Human Rights Watch, one of the world's best-financed and most influential human rights organizations? It turns out that they cook the books about facts, cheat on interviews, and put out pre-determined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Human_Rights_Watch
Copy of a letter to the New York Sun
from Maurice Ostroff: A critic's first duty is to get his facts right
To The Editor
http://www.takeapen.org/Takeapen/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=851
Dec 10, 2006 3:18
Photo: AP , AP
As a result, little remains of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in the shadow of the Holocaust. Officials of Amnesty and other non-governmental organizations focus their attacks on democracies attempting to defend against terror, with far fewer resources to oppose totalitarian and genocidal regimes such as Sudan and Iran.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1164881857754
A few friends of mine went to a party in Jerusalem that was primarily made up Anglophone reporters, people who work for NGOs and UN agencies. What amazed them was the pervasive sense of the people they met and spoke with that Israel was the greatest human rights violator in the world and that the dismantling of Israel would be a great step forward for global human rights.
Now the idiocy of this position, the suicidal nature of this strategy to advance human rights is nothing short of breathtaking. Take Israel out of the Middle East and the region becomes nothing but Hama rules… especially when the nastiest people — those who want to destroy Israel — would feel empowered by such a victory. But try and tell that to people who are smart enough to believe they can’t be wrong, and credulous enough to believe the demopaths who pull their chains on a daily basis. And as a result, they are prime targets for a hate campaign against Israel.
The latest news from Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank illustrates all the anomalies involved in this fundamental failure of the “human rights” community to understand what’s going on: black hearts and red spades galore. Melanie Phillips has a superb column which analyzes the current, mind-boggling situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the Fatah “refugees” from Gaza seeking asylum in Israel.
Refugees From Whom?
The Spectator MONDAY, 4TH AUGUST 2008
Melanie PhillipsExtraordinary developments in Gaza have given a new meaning to the term ‘Palestinian refugees’. As the Jerusalem Post reports, fierce fighting in Gaza between Fatah and Hamas over the weekend, in which 11 people died and dozens more were wounded, resulted in 180 Fatah refugees fleeing from what they called a ‘war of genocide’ by Hamas against Fatah supporters. And where did they flee to? Why, to Israel, of course — which allowed them in and proceeded to treat 23 of them (some of whom were wounded by the Israeli army after they approached the crossing into Israel) in Israeli hospitals.
This is one of the most important anomalies for those who follow the current PCP narrative about the Middle East in which Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people explain the ferocious hatred of the Palestinians for the Israelis. According to that version of events — largely the one that liberals have taken over by adopting the Palestinian narrative of suffering — the last place these Palestinian “warriors” would go was Israel, their mortal enemy who is trying to commit genocide against their people. If the Israelis want to wipe out Palestinian civilians, how much the more would they want to kill Palestinian “militants”?
And yet, this is not a new story. When King Hussein, “the moderate,” found himself dealing with a restive Palestinian population in 1970, he slaughtered some 10,000 of them — men, women and children — in “Black September.” The Palestinians fled his tender mercies across the Jordan to Israel where the Israelis, obligingly, shipped them over to Lebanon, where, within five years, they plunged that unhappy land into a seven-year war that killed over 100,000 civilians. When Israel finally put an end to that civil war by invading in 1982, and the Phalanage took advantage of their upper hand to slaughter several hundred Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla in revenge for Damur, the terrified inhabitants of the camps ran immediately to the Israeli positions outside the camp for protection. Why? Because they knew, despite all the “narratives” that when the chips are down, you can expect more mercy from the Jews than your fellow Arabs.
These are revelatory moments, when you see not the “public transcript” but what people really think. In honor-shame cultures they can be deeply embarrassing, since the public transcript is the “honorable” one, and the revelations that reverse that — like in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes — are almost by definition shameful. Participants might prefer not to remember these, might even seek to reverse them by insisting still more shrilly on the original “narrative.” But outsiders need to pay close attention, because these rare moments are infinitely more revealing than the “public transcript.”
These refugees say they cannot return to Gaza because they will be killed. How fortunate, therefore, that their own Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, can give them sanctuary in the West Bank!
But hang on – Abbas won’t let them in. Yup, with the exception of five individuals whom he did allow in, he’s denied them all sanctuary. He says they should go back to Gaza.
Before we get into the explanations proferred, let me make a medievalist’s remark. This is a staggering act of cowardice. Any warlord has to protect his men above all. If he fails to do so, he loses their loyalty. To refuse safety to men who have suffered from their adherence to your banner — unless it was their fault — shows your weakness.
And the invaluable Khaled abu Toameh tells us the reason why:
PA officials explained that the reason behind their refusal to absorb the new ‘refugees’ was their desire not to encourage other residents of the Gaza Strip to leave. ‘Everyone knows that if we allow people to leave the Gaza Strip, almost all the residents living there would try to cross the border into Israel,’ said a senior PA official.
Technorati - 'palestinian' terrorism Munich massacre human rights 'palestinians' Israel IDF 'palestinian' Apartheid Zionism Anti Israel bigotry Islamic Apartheid War on terror Terror victims 'palestinian' propaganda jihad Genocide bombing Anti Israel bias Arab racism Jews IDF Anti Israel racism Islamofacsism Conflict Israel "Palestine" "Palestinians" Israelis Civilwar Arabs MuslimsJihad Terrorism Fatah non-Muslims Christians Hamas Gaza Terrorism Islamofascism Jerusalem Amnesty Muslims
Labels: Amnesty, HRW, Human rights
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home