UK raises concerns over Israel's treatment of Palestinian children

[Violet_Crumble]

The British government has raised concerns about Israel's treatment of Palestinian minors arrested and interrogated for stone-throwing and other crimes, highlighted in an article in the Guardian.

Alistair Burt, the Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, urged Israel to address the UK government's concerns when on a visit to the country a fortnight ago.

Burt told the Guardian he had "raised concerns about the treatment of Palestinian children in Israeli detention. I urged the Israeli government to address these concerns."

Burt was also asked in the House of Commons last week about the issue of solitary confinement for Palestinian minors. Labour MP Sandra Osborne called on the government to condemn the practice and demand the release of 106 children detained in the Israeli military prison system.

In response, Burt referred to an earlier statement in which he said the practice of shackling children was wrong. Minors are routinely shackled throughout court hearings in the Israeli military justice system.

Osborne told the Guardian Israel's treatment of Palestinian minors was "unjustified in the context of human rights". She had been appalled and distressed on visits to the Israeli military juvenile court at Ofer, near Jerusalem. "No civilised democracy should treat children in that way," she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/uk-concerns-israels-treatment-palestinian-children

[Violet_Crumble]

1. The Palestinian children – alone and bewildered – in Israel's Al Jalame jail

The room is barely wider than the thin, dirty mattress that covers the floor. Behind a low concrete wall is a squat toilet, the stench from which has no escape in the windowless room. The rough concrete walls deter idle leaning; the constant overhead light inhibits sleep. The delivery of food through a low slit in the door is the only way of marking time, dividing day from night.

This is Cell 36, deep within Al Jalame prison in northern Israel. It is one of a handful of cells where Palestinian children are locked in solitary confinement for days or even weeks. One 16-year-old claimed that he had been kept in Cell 36 for 65 days.

The only escape is to the interrogation room where children are shackled, by hands and feet, to a chair while being questioned, sometimes for hours.

Most are accused of throwing stones at soldiers or settlers; some, of flinging molotov cocktails; a few, of more serious offences such as links to militant organisations or using weapons. They are also pumped for information about the activities and sympathies of their classmates, relatives and neighbours.

At the beginning, nearly all deny the accusations. Most say they are threatened; some report physical violence. Verbal abuse – "You're a dog, a son of a whore" – is common. Many are exhausted from sleep deprivation. Day after day they are fettered to the chair, then returned to solitary confinement. In the end, many sign confessions that they later say were coerced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/22/palestinian-children-detained-jail-israel?intcmp=239

[Jefferson23]

3. Shackled, and this from the beacon of democracy in the ME.

Treat children like animals and call it justified deterrence.

[shira]

4. Guardian Report Misses the Real Child Abuse – 2

THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE ISRAEL SECURITY AGENCY (ISA) TO THE GUARDIAN

1. The claims that Palestinian minors were subject to interrogation techniques that include beatings, prolonged periods in handcuffs, threats, kicks, verbal abuse, humiliation, isolation and prevention of sleep are utterly baseless.

2. The Israel Security Agency acts in accordance with the ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice, at the center of which stands the court ruling regarding ISA interrogations from 1999. In this context, it must be mentioned that in 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected a petition that claimed that the 1999 High Court of Justice ruling regarding ISA interrogations was allegedly being violated.

3. The Israel Security Agency and its employees work solely within the law and are subject to oversight and internal and external examination, including by the State Comptroller, the State Prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office, the Israeli Knesset and Israel’s courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court.

4. Those detained for ISA questioning receive the full rights for which they are eligible, in accordance with international treaties of which the State of Israel is a signatory and according to Israeli law, including the right to legal counsel and visits by the Red Cross.

5. The ISA categorically denies all claims with regard to the interrogation of minors. In fact, the complete opposite is true – the ISA guidelines grant minors special protections needed because of their age.

6. No one questioned, including minors being questioned, is kept alone in a cell as a punitive measure or in order to obtain a confession, etc.

7. Regarding the other claims regarding torture, humiliation, etc, it is hereby emphasized that the investigators act in accordance with the law and unequivocal guidelines which forbid such actions.

8. The claims regarding the prevention of legal counsel are also completely groundless – indeed, there are specific cases in which a meeting between a prisoner and his lawyer are not allowed, however there is legal oversight on ISA interrogations, including the issue of postponing meetings with lawyers, including the possibility of filing a petition with the Supreme Court in Israel. It should be mentioned that a fundamental petition that was filed in this regard with the High Court of Justice in 2009 was withdrawn by the petitioners after a discussion in the Supreme Court.

http://honestreporting.com/guardian-report-misses-the-real-child-abuse/2/

[Jefferson23]

6. Documentation goes back many years.

Children Behind Bars: Issue 32





Report on the Medical Treatment of Palestinian Child Prisoners in Israeli Detention Facilities

Case Study

16 year old Sameh Safwan of Askar Refugee Camp in Nablus was interviewed on 7 March 2007 by a DCI lawyer at Hasharon Prison. He had been arrested by the Israeli Army and transferred to Huwwara Detention Centre in Nablus where he was detained for two days. Then he was transferred to Petah Tikva Interrogation Centre. He reported that he was beaten during his interrogation there. He reported suffering from hearing problems in his left ear after he was interrogated. When he reported hearing loss to the prison medical officer at Hasharon Prison, where he was eventually transferred to await being charged and put on trial, he was prescribed Paracetamol and did not receive any further treatment or medical attention thereafter.

Introduction

At the end of October 2007, there were approximately 319 Palestinian children from the Occupied Palestinian Territories in Israeli custody. These children were either under arrest and being held for interrogation purposes; had been charged with offences under Israeli military law and were awaiting trial or sentence; or were serving terms of imprisonment inside Israeli prisons.

Palestinian children in the West Bank are arrested by the Israeli army or the Israeli police, both of which collectively comprise the Israeli occupying forces in the West Bank. The children are then detained in any one of the numerous prisons and detention and interrogation centres administered by the State of Israel. The majority of these facilities are located inside Israeli territory. The rest are located in the occupied West Bank.

Lawyers employed by Defence for Children International, Palestine Section regularly visit Palestinian children held in Israeli custody. During a visit to the Etzion Detention and Interrogation Centre near Bethlehem on 9 July 2007, a DCI Lawyer noted as follows:-

• Children sleep on thin mattresses on the floor.

• There is no electricity in the cells.

• The sun does not appear to penetrate the cells which are constantly dark. There are very small windows in the rooms.

• Rooms are opened three times a day for one hour at a time.

During the course of these visits, children have provided statements about their experiences of incarceration from arrest to final imprisonment. An ongoing and repeated feature of their experience is the lack of medical attention and treatment for a pre existing health condition or injury, or a condition or injury sustained during or after the interrogation process.

During a visit to Ofer Military Prison near Ramallah on 12 June 2007, a DCI lawyer spoke to a child prisoner who described the medical situation as follows:-

The Prison administration doesn't deal with medical issues in a humane way. They don't provide us with anything apart from painkillers. Everything is according to a registration process. You have to register with a doctor and the administration doesn't deal immediately with critical cases. There is delay before any such case is sent to hospital. There is no psychiatrist in this prison.

Case Study

17 year old Mu'ad Suddah of Qaffin Village in Tulkarem, was interviewed on 5 September 2007 at Salem Detention and Interrogation Centre, located in Israel near Jenin. On 3 July 2007 he had undergone surgery to his skull due to a head injury as a result of being previously beaten by Israeli soldiers. He was arrested on 22 August 2007 at 3am at his family home. He reported that the soldiers beat him over his head during the arrest, despite asking them not to beat him around his head because of recent surgery.

After he was beaten, he was handcuffed and blindfolded. He was transferred to an area of a dismantled Israeli settlement (previously known as Hermash settlement) where he was thrown on the ground while he was handcuffed and blindfolded. He was beaten and kicked repeatedly around various parts of his body.

He was then exposed to strange and loud sounds over two hours and afterwards he was transferred to a military base, where he was also beaten.

One of the soldiers, raised him from the ground and put Muad's head between his legs, pressing his knees together placing extreme pressure around Muad's head.

Muad suffers ongoing headaches and pain as a result of the physical violence he sustained during his arrest. His DCI lawyer has lodged an urgent request with the Israeli Prison Service seeking that he be examined and treated immediately.

International Law

Detained persons have certain unalienable rights under international law. The situation of Palestinian children from the occupied Palestinian territories who are arrested and detained by Israeli occupying forces is governed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law, customary international law and the many United Nations rules, guidelines and standards relevant to the treatment of prisoners and detained persons.

Israel argues that international human rights law such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the 1984 Convention Against Torture and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, and international humanitarian law; namely the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, do not apply to its occupation of the Palestinian territories. Furthermore, guidelines, standards and rules set by various United Nations bodies are not legally binding on States.

However, these arguments and interpretations have been rejected by international law experts, lawyers, academics and human rights organisations who argue that any detained person is to be afforded proper and humane treatment in every respect. Most of the principals of the protection of detained persons codified under international law are customary law and therefore are binding on all States. Furthermore, Palestinian children held in prisons within the borders of Israel should be afforded the same proper and humane treatment that is received by children who are citizens of Israel.

In this regard, Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War provides that persons detained in the occupied country….. shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtained in prisons in the occupied country and shall receive the medical attention required by their state of health. Article 76 also provides that proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors .

Article 24 of the United Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (ratified by all UN member States including Israel, except for two) provides that State Parties are to ensure that all children have the right to the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health, without discrimination.

There are other references within international instruments that define the rights of all detained children to medical treatment, health care and sanitation, without discrimination. Article 10 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rig hts 1966 specifically provides that all persons deprived of their liberty should be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person .

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Protection of Prisoners approved by a United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment in 1957 sets down minimum international standards for providing medical services, accommodation, food and personal hygiene to detained persons . Article 22 provides that in every detention type institution there shall be available the services of at least one qualified medical officer who should have some knowledge of psychiatry and sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals . Articles 25 and 26 directly place responsibility on medical officers appointed by prison administrations to report a prisoner's physical or mental health where it may be affected by continued imprisonment or by any condition of imprisonment, and to regularly inspect and report on food ; t he hygiene and cleanliness of the institution and the prisoners; t he sanitation, heating, lighting and ventilation of the institution; and the suitability and cleanliness of the prisoners' clothing and bedding .

In 1985, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, the “Beijing Rules”, were adopted for the protection of young offenders in detention. Article 26 (2) provides that juveniles in institutions shall receive care, protection and all necessary assistance-social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical-that they may require because of their age, sex, and personality and in the interest of their wholesome development.

Article 49 of the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty provides that every juvenile shall receive adequate medical care, both preventive and remedial… All such medical care should, where possible, be provided to detained juveniles through the appropriate health facilities and services of the community in which the detention facility is located….

Detention Facilities

Israeli Army and Police

Case Study

16 year old Mojahed Sayyes of Jenin was interviewed at Salem Detention and Interrogation Centre on 13 th September 2007.

He was arrested on 12 August 2007 at 4am at home. On 30 August 2007, he was given a four month administrative detention order. He reported that he started to suffer from dizziness and seizures but despite reporting it to the detention centre medical officers, he has not been prescribed or offered any medication or treatment. He reported that he has asked for treatment several times but he was informed that they could not offer him anything except Paracetamol.

The Israeli military forces administer the numerous detention centres in the West Bank and in Israel, used by Israeli occupying forces to interrogate Palestinian child prisoners.

The majority of children interviewed by DCI lawyers in 2007 reported that prior to their interrogation, they underwent a medical examination, and were photographed during the examination. However, all of those who reported a pre existing medical condition, or an injury or pain sustained during their arrest were not provided any specific medical attention or treatment. In practice, these initial medical examinations at the interrogation centres are superficial and conducted as a matter of course in order to officially satisfy the requirement that a detainee be immediately examined under all of the international instruments mentioned above.

Case Study

17 year old Sabe' Titiy is from Balata Refugee Camp in Nablus. He was arrested on 10 May 2007.

He spoke to a DCI lawyer while in an interrogation centre and reported that he was exposed to very loud noises during his interrogation over an extended period and that his ears began to bleed. He was examined by a doctor following this who made a recommendation that Sabe' be transferred to another cell.

Israeli Prison Service

Case Study

16 year old Ala'a Hammad of Balata Refugee Camp in Nablus was arrested on 16 May 2007 at around 3am at his family home. He suffers from a stomach ulcer, a condition existing prior his arrest, and was examined by medical officers at three Israeli detention facilities during his incarceration. He was examined at both Huwarra and Salem Detention and Interrogation Centres and then at Hasharon prison where he was finally given medicine. He is not certain what medicine he has been given, but reports that it has not helped relieve the pain from his stomach ulcer and that he has not received any further treatment.

Palestinian children who are serving sentences of imprisonment or awaiting trial are held in prisons administered by the Israeli Prison Service. Palestinian children are held mainly in Hasharon and Damoun Prisons in the north of Israel.

Once inside prison and in the custody of the Israeli Prison Service, children who complain of an existing medical condition, or pain or injury sustained as a result of torture or ill treatment during the interrogation process, are prescribed Paracetamol, but are not referred for further specialist treatment or examination.

DCI lawyers report that hospital and specialist treatment is provided to children who are in emergency situations and children with symptoms of a possible serious illness are not treated until such illness has reached a critical stage.

Case Study

Khaled Hassan Khalaf was interviewed at Hasharon Prison on 7 March 2007. He was arrested on 17 August 2006. He was transferred to Ma'ale Adumim detention and interrogation centre and reported that he was examined by a doctor and photographed on his arrival. He was examined again after being transferred to Etzion detention and interrogation centre.

As a result of beatings during his interrogation, Khaled suffers from a problem with his jaw. He reports that despite the two examinations, his jaw was not treated. While in prison, he has been prescribed Paracetamol from the pain he suffers in his jaw.


http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=633&CategoryId=10

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Yeah, but that's all been trumped by the compelling arguments put forward....

1. Israel claims it's not true. Therefore all those Palestinian kids and human right groups are nothing but liars and Israel-hating antisemites just trying to make Israel look bad!!

2. Look! Right on cue, there's a smear job being done on the journalist who wrote the OP! That makes her an Israel-hating antisemite as well! We've got to stop talking about the mistreatment of Palestinian kids and start attacking the person who wrote the article and get our priorities right!!

[shira]

8. You're missing the point. The source for these questionable claims is an organization...

...that has a current member of the terror organization PFLP posing as a human rights activist on its board.

In June 2007 the Israeli Supreme Court noted that:

“(Jabarin) is apparently active as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in part of his hours of activity he is the director of a human rights organisation, and in another part he is an activist in a terrorist organisation which does not shy away from acts of murder and attempted murder, which have nothing to do with rights, and, on the contrary, deny the most basic right of all, the most fundamental of fundamental rights, without which there are no other rights – the right to life.”

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Nah, that'd fall under point #2....

I'm not missing the point that some think attacking any individual or organisation that criticises Israel means that whatever they're claiming is automatically proven wrong, despite the fact that those who engage in this tactic rarely address the actual claim that was made.

You think claims of mistreatment of children in Israeli prisons is 'questionable'? So, you think all those Palestinian children are liars? And hundreds of them have been lying over a period of years just to make Israel look bad? That Israel routinely ensures that either a parent or a lawyer is present with kids over 12 during interrogations? If so, yr going to have to do a lot better than just trying to smear as many people as possible associated with writing about it or bringing it to light.....

[shira]

15. So you have no problem with known terrorists sitting on the board...

...of human rights NGOs? A terrorist is the antithesis of a humanitarian. They couldn't be more profoundly different.

And you don't believe anyone has the right to question a "human rights" organization like that?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Yr insisting that the claims of mistreatment of children aren't true. Try supporting that argument..

Trying to steer off on some tangent where someone working for an organisation that's documented hundreds of claims is attacked as a way of showing the claims aren't true doesn't work. So here's yr chance. Try providing some evidence to back up yr belief that all those hundreds of kids are lying and that the charges aren't true...

[shira]

20. Not at all. The real issue here is the propping up of fake human rights organizations...

...that not only employ but also flaunt Jew haters who want Jews dead. The Guardian's main reporter in Israel shouldn't be reporting as if this organization is genuinely committed to universal human rights.

I can't imagine you or anyone else here tolerating for a moment a human rights organization that employs and parades around the most vile Arab hating Kahanists. It's sickening. The same goes WRT Jew haters calling for the murder of Jews.

[Jefferson23]

21. The Israeli government saw it that way..no other human rights group agreed.

Lift Travel Ban on Human Rights Defender

Shawan Jabarin Unable to Receive Award, Attend Rights Meetings

Israeli authorities in the West Bank should lift the travel ban imposed since 2006 on West Bank resident Shawan Jabarin, the director of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem said today. Israeli authorities violated Jabarin’s due process rights in imposing the ban and have not produced any evidence that would justify continuing to restrict him from travel, the groups said.

The ban has prevented Jabarin from leaving the West Bank to receive a prestigious human rights prize from the Danish PL Foundation, participate in a European Union forum on human rights, and attend a Human Rights Watch advisory committee meeting in New York City. Jabarin attempted to travel yesterday, but told the rights groups that Israeli authorities turned him back at the Allenby Bridge crossing with Jordan, citing the travel ban.

“The ban preventing Shawan Jabarin from traveling abroad to receive an award is emblematic of the arbitrary restrictions placed on Palestinian human rights defenders and civil society activists,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s interim MENA Programme Director. “It must be lifted, and the Israeli authorities must stop using unspecified security concerns to obstruct the work of Palestinian human rights activists.”

Israel, which controls all border crossings between the West Bank and Israel as well as Jordan, has prohibited Jabarin from traveling outside the West Bank since 2006, when he became director of Al-Haq, a leading human rights organization in the West Bank. Israel had allowed Jabarin to travel abroad eight times in the previous seven years.

The Israeli military previously claimed in court that Jabarin was an activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which Israel considers a terrorist organization, and that his travel abroad for even a limited period would endanger Israel’s security. However, Israeli authorities have not charged Jabarin with any crime or given him an opportunity to confront the allegations against him. The Israeli High Court of Justice has upheld Jabarin’s travel ban on security grounds, but did so based on secret information that Jabarin and his lawyer were not allowed to see or challenge.

“It is hard to believe any claim that Jabarin's travel to Denmark to receive a human rights award would harm Israeli security, the more so when any evidence is kept secret,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “While civil society groups recognize Jabarin’s courageous work, Israel is punishing him with a travel ban.”

Under Jabarin’s leadership, Al-Haq has frequently criticized rights violations by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Jabarin, for instance, last year confronted PA officials over allegations of torture on an Al Jazeera broadcast.

The Danish PL Foundation awarded its 2011 Prize for Freedom jointly to Al-Haq and the Israeli rights group B’Tselem. The Foundation was established in 1984 by Poul Lauritzen, a Danish businessman and member of the Danish resistance during World War II. Previous recipients of the foundation’s annual prize include a Turkish playwright, Polish Solidarity members, and human rights activist Moncef Marzouki, currently the interim president of Tunisia.

“I deeply regret that at this important occasion, held in appreciation of the struggle for human rights, I will stand without Shawan at my side,” said Jessica Montell, executive director of B’Tselem. “Shawan’s absence is an example of the ongoing severe violation of the freedom of movement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.”

In 2010, Al-Haq and B’Tselem were also jointly awarded the Geuzen Medal, an annual human rights prize given by a Dutch group that had resisted the Nazi occupation in World War II. Israel barred Jabarin from traveling to the Netherlands to receive the award.

The PL Foundation prize ceremony will be held in Copenhagen on November 29. Nina Atallah, the head of Al-Haq’s monitoring and documentation department, will try to travel to the prize ceremony.

Human Rights Watch will host a meeting of its Middle East and North Africa Division’s advisory committee, of which Jabarin is a member, in New York City on December 6 to discuss the organization’s work in the region. The advisory committee is comprised of independent human rights activists, legal scholars, journalists, and others from around the region.

On December 8 the EU-NGO Forum on Human Rights will convene EU states, institutions, and nongovernmental groups in Brussels. According to the invitation Jabarin received, the forum, organized by the European Commission and the European External Action Service, will discuss the implementation of the EU’s guidelines on international humanitarian law and its human rights strategy.

Article 12 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which the International Court of Justice and other legal bodies have determined applies to the occupied Palestinian territories, states that everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his or her own.

http://www.btselem.org/press-release/lift-travel-ban-human-rights-defender

[shira]

23. So Jabarin is a former Jew hater who has renounced his antisemitism...

...and has fought against Jew hating antisemites ever since?

Has he also explicitly condemed (in both english and arabic) Jew haters who encourage, reward, and cheer on the murder of Jews?

IOW, what evidence exists demonstrating without any question that Jabaran is sorry about being a part of of an organization dedicated to the murdering of Jews, and that he is now a legitimate human rights activist?

[Jefferson23]

25. You prefer to write your questions in the affirmative as if the charge

has been proven..that is not the case.

HRW appoints alleged terrorist to Mideast Board
By RON FRIEDMAN AND BENJAMIN WEINTHAL 02/18/2011 03:0

Shawan Jabarin’s ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group spark outrage; NGOs defend him as ‘human rights leader.

By Associated Press

The New York-based Human Rights Watch has appointed Shawan Jabarin, a Palestinian who, according to the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), is a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, to its Mideast Advisory Board.

Jabarin denies being a member of the terrorist organization.

Writing on the online Daily Beast news site on Tuesday, Sir Harold Evans, former editor of the Sunday Times, disclosed Jabarin’s appointment and his alleged terrorist activity in a lengthy investigative report.

In 2007, Israel’s Supreme Court termed Jabarin “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” because he was active at the same time in the Al-Haq Palestinian human rights organization and the terrorist organization.

HRW’s decision to include Jabarin on its Mideast Board sparked criticism from Robert L. Bernstein, the founder of HRW, Stuart Robinowitz, a prominent New York attorney who has undertaken human-rights missions for the American Bar Association and Helsinki Watch (the predecessor to HRW) in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and El Salvador, and Prof. Gerald Steinberg, the president of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor.

“This appointment ends any façade that Human Rights Watch is a moral ‘watchdog’ organization,” Steinberg said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court said in a ruling in 2009 that “material pointing to [Jabarin’s] involvement in the activity of terrorist entities is concrete and reliable material.”

In 2008, the court wrote that Jabarin “is among the senior activists of the terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.”

And in 2007, the Court noted that Jabarin "is apparently active as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in part of his hours of activity he is the director of a human rights organization, and in another part he is an activist in a terrorist organization which does not shy away from acts of murder and attempted murder, which have nothing to do with rights, and, on the contrary, deny the most basic right of all, the most fundamental of fundamental rights, without which there are no other rights – the right to life.”

Steinberg said that “Mr. Jabarin has ties to the PFLP terror group, which specialized in aircraft hijackings and carries out suicide bombings and political assassinations.

He also heads an organization, Al-Haq, which is among the leaders of delegitimization campaigns targeting Israel. This appointment is a slap in the face from HRW Executive Director Ken Roth and Chairman James Hoge to terror victims, Israelis, Jews, and others who seek to uphold universal human rights.”

Asked if HRW should recall its appointment of Jabrin and sever ties with him, Bernstein told The Jerusalem Post from New York on Wednesday that he “wants to wait and see what they do.”

Bernstein added that unless he is unaware of certain information, HRW has done the “wrong thing.” He said that “they could have put other people on the board who would not have created this problem for them.”

In an e-mail to the Post on Wednesday, Robinowitz wrote, “Mr. Roth and Ms.

Whitson [Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division] should have disclosed the opinions of the highly regarded Israel Supreme Court to HRW’s board of directors. Their failure to do so raises disturbing questions.”

HRW spokeswoman Emma Daly responded to the Post on Wednesday and cited a HRW press release from 2009 in which the Supreme Court is mentioned. Daly wrote, “We have repeatedly and publicly referred to the role of the Israeli High Court in Jabarin’s case. As we note in that release, the court’s decision was based on secret evidence from the Israeli authorities that neither Jabarin nor his lawyers were allowed to see or contest.

Instead, we place more credence in Jabarin’s public and well-known record of integrity as a human rights defender for more than two decades. That record marks him as the sort of human rights leader whom we should have on our Middle East advisory committee.”

Sari Bashi, director of Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, said, “Approval of a travel ban based on secret evidence is far from ‘proof’ of wrongdoing.

Security blocks can be imposed because someone attended a lecture, participated in a conversation about politics or had a family member who was injured or killed by the Israeli army – and is therefore considered to have a ‘motivation’ to harm Israel.

“Sometimes security blocks are imposed to pressure people to collaborate with the Shin Bet. The evidence is often collected from informants seeking to please their handlers, and it cannot be refuted, because it is kept hidden from the person accused of wrongdoing. It is easy to make accusations while hiding behind secret evidence. It is far more difficult to engage in the twodecade long nonviolent struggle that Shawan Jabarin is leading to protect the human rights of those vulnerable to abuse.”

Robinowitz said that Jabarin’s lawyer had consented to the court’s confidential treatment of information from informants.

He continued, “When Ms. Whitson asked the members of the Middle East Advisory Committee and the HRW Board to approve Mr.

Jabarin, with Mr. Roth’s approval, she did not mention the Israel Supreme Court’s three opinions (2007, 2008 and 2009) finding that Mr. Jabarin was an associate of the PFLP and a security risk.”

He added, “The sole defense offered by Ms. Daly is a two-year-old HRW press release complaining about the court’s 2009 opinion upholding Mr. Jabarin’s travel ban. But it is not reasonable to withhold highly relevant information today based on a press release from two years ago...

“Why didn’t Ms. Whitson and Mr. Roth tell the board about the court opinions in January 2011, when they were asking the board to approve Mr, Jabarin?” Robinowitz asked.

Robinowitz continued, “Mr. Roth’s and Ms. Whitson’s defense – reliance on a two-year-old misleading press release – merely compounds their present misleading conduct. In the final analysis, Mr. Roth and Ms
Whitson have put themselves above the law by assuming they can disregard the Israeli Supreme Court, which is one of the most highly respected judicial bodies in the world.”

He said that “the Jabarin incident, I believe, is part of a pattern of conduct that casts doubt about Mr. Roth’s and Ms. Whitson’s ability to deal with matters affecting Israel in a balanced and objective manner. That is not consistent with HRW’s mandate to be even-handed, transparent and accountable.”

Steinberg told the Post that “Human Rights watch has been working together with Jabarin and Al-Haq in an informal capacity for a long time, but the official appointment is an example of HRW Executive Director Ken Roth’s and the group’s Middle East and North Africa division’s enlistment in the widespread delegitimization campaign being conducted against Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=208768

[shira]

30. There's no question Jabarin once headed the PFLP....

Ken Roth of HRW initially denied Jabarin had ties to the PFLP before saying that even if he did, he stopped after 1987, which is false b/c Israel arrested him in 1994 for heading the PFLP. By 1994, Jabarin was already heading the bogus human rights NGO Al Haq. Ken Roth also refused to comment on Israel's Supreme Court ruling that Jabarin was still affiliated with the PFLP as late as 2007. Jordan barred his entry from the W.Bank just a few years ago due to his terror ties.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/15/shawan-jabarins-controversial-appointment-to-human-rights-watch-board.html
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/al_haq_factsheet
http://volokh.com/2011/02/21/hrw-defends-shawan-jabarin/

Not that any of the above will make a bit of difference to you, but....

...the real kicker is this, from the Al Haq website:

&quot R)esistance against occupation and its arbitrary practices is legitimate under international law, and these acts are considered a part of the Palestinian people‘s resistance and struggle against occupation in order to achieve their right to liberation and independence, the occupation forces call it “terrorism”...

http://asp.alhaq.org/zalhaq/site/eDocs/txtDocs/Presentations/pres_randa_280403.htm

Try defending that, Jeff.

What kind of human rights organization (and this includes HRW) would claim that the intentional murder of Jews is legitimate under international law?

[Jefferson23]

37. What you ignore is the pertinent information about the Israeli Court.

snip* HRW spokeswoman Emma Daly responded to the Post on Wednesday and cited a HRW press release from 2009 in which the Supreme Court is mentioned. Daly wrote, “We have repeatedly and publicly referred to the role of the Israeli High Court in Jabarin’s case. As we note in that release, the court’s decision was based on secret evidence from the Israeli authorities that neither Jabarin nor his lawyers were allowed to see or contest.


Sari Bashi, director of Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, said, “Approval of a travel ban based on secret evidence is far from ‘proof’ of wrongdoing.


Security blocks can be imposed because someone attended a lecture, participated in a conversation about politics or had a family member who was injured or killed by the Israeli army – and is therefore considered to have a ‘motivation’ to harm Israel.

“Sometimes security blocks are imposed to pressure people to collaborate with the Shin Bet. The evidence is often collected from informants seeking to please their handlers, and it cannot be refuted, because it is kept hidden from the person accused of wrongdoing. It is easy to make accusations while hiding behind secret evidence. It is far more difficult to engage in the twodecade long nonviolent struggle that Shawan Jabarin is leading to protect the human rights of those vulnerable to abuse.” ( end)

The court did itself no compliment to ban him with the reliance on secret evidence...that is the
problem.

Collectively, the human rights groups, not just HRW, supported Jabarin.

[shira]

38. Jabarin's organization is quoted as stating terror (resistance) is legitimate under Int'l Law...

How do you square the circle?

How is it possible for any credible human rights group to defend, support, and employ someone who thinks the murder of innocents is legal under Int'l Law? That's the very antithesis of human rights. What kind of human rights groups would have someone like that on their board, or on staff?

Recall that I asked you to show me where Jabarin renounced terror (resistance) against innocents and has condemned it ever since. You couldn't do it. But HRW, B'tselem, and other HR groups think this guy is okay. Is he really okay?

Moreover, why should anyone take seriously the claims of any HR group that legitimizes terror vs. innocents?

[Jefferson23]

39. Again you presume he was found guilty

of something...secret evidence is not generally accepted as proof.

[shira]

40. No, I'm now going only by that quote that legitimizes terror...

...since no amount of evidence will convince you.

What kind of human rights group believes terror against innocents is legal? And why would other human rights groups gladly associate themselves with such a monster?

[Jefferson23]

41. What quote? n/t

[shira]

46. Here it is...

"Resistance against occupation and its arbitrary practices is legitimate under international law, and these acts are considered a part of the Palestinian people‘s resistance and struggle against occupation in order to achieve their right to liberation and independence, the occupation forces call it “terrorism”...

http://asp.alhaq.org/zalhaq/site/eDocs/txtDocs/Presentations/pres_randa_280403.htm

How can Jabarin honestly be considered a humanitarian whose reports should be taken seriously? And worse, why are organizations like HRW, B'tselem, and AI pretending that a terrorist sympathizer is a fellow human rights activist?

How do you take any of those human rights organizations seriously?

Please explain.

[Jefferson23]

47. Seriously, read your own material closer next time.

Fourth: Arbitrary Arrests against Palestinian Civilian Population

The Israeli occupation authorities wage broad arrest campaigns during their raid on Palestinian cities, villages and camps. The most important example is the arrest campaign that accompanied the invasions that took place in March and April of the last year. The occupation forces raided the Palestinian houses, carried out house-to-house searches and arrested the young men in an arbitrary manner without giving any reasons for arresting them. Then, the Israeli forces gathered them in schoolyards, which have been transformed to detention centers, and then transferred them to Israeli detention centers. The most egregious feature of these detentions is that they are arbitrary and broad arrests, which involve minors, youth and men of all age groups and social strata, their only offense being that they are men and Palestinian.

The broad and arbitrary detentions carried out by the occupation forces against the Palestinian civilians represent a form of collective punishment in contradiction to article 13 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prevents collective punishment. This article states that “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

Subsequently, the occupation forces expose the detainees to beating, insulting and torture during the investigation period in an attempt to obtain information from them on actions they had previously carried out or they were planning to carry out against the Israeli occupation forces.
Although resistance against occupation and its arbitrary practices is legitimate under international law, and these acts are considered a part of the Palestinian people's resistance and struggle against occupation in order to achieve their right to liberation and independence, the occupation forces call it “terrorism” or “destructive acts”. Subsequently, occupation authorities submit bills of indictment against those who resist occupation and bring them to military courts, where formal judiciary proceedings take place, severe judgments are taken against them, and they are imprisoned for long periods. In accordance with the Israeli law, the non-confession of the accused of committing the charge and confession of others are considered conclusive evidence that judgments issued by the military judges may be based on.




shira, what is wrong here imo is that you don't read what you post. There is no suggestion that terrorism is advocated
nor excused..it speaks to the practices that are legitimate under international law. The Israeli government
has never called a non terrorist a terrorist??

on edit for grammar.

[shira]

50. It's not just that quote. Jabarin's Al-Haq rarely condemns terror attacks on Israeli civilians...

They have very little to say about thousands of rockets terrorizing innocent civilians.

Nothing about Hamas human shielding.

Nothing about Palestinian media inciting the population to hatred and more 'martyrdom' (translation: suicide attacks, etc).

Nothing about Hamas treatment of gays, women, christians.

They didn't condemn Hamas for the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange that released hundreds of known terrorists. Think about that one. A Human Rights organization has nothing to say about released, unrepentant terrorists who will most likely return to their terrorist ways. Even if some don't, that exchange sets a terrible precedent and only emboldens Hamas to keep up with their terror attacks with impunity. Who cares if some get caught when they can be released within a short time period?

Nor did they condemn a PFLP member named Hani Rosmi Jaber who was convicted for murder in a terror attack.

===========

If you're as concerned for human rights as you say you are, then you'd agree the above is pretty damned bad, right?

[Jefferson23]

51. You're a regualar riot Alice. n/t

[shira]

52. So despite the above, you really believe

...Al Haq and Jabarin genuinely fight for Human Rights? And HRW, AI, and B'tselem are credible HR organizations for propping this guy up?

And you expect to be taken seriously WRT human rights abuses alleged against Israel? If so, why?

[Jefferson23]

53. I don't expect you to do anything but adhere to the Israeli government line.

Even when it is made obvious to you there was secret evidence used..this
is ok in your mind.

You bet I would take the word of each of those organizations over the Israeli
government any day. Over the word of most governments for that matter I
will add.

*The above you refer to does not suggest nor defend armed resistance.

See ya around.

on edit to clarify: *Only what is allowed them under international
law.

[shira]

54. So you can't defend Jabarin for his inhumane worldview...

...or HRW, AI, and B'tselem for propping this imposter up. Why not just admit it? The Israeli Supreme Court decision is irrelevant given all the other evidence showing he's a fraud.

I'll change the question and let's see if you can answer this...

Why should anyone take HRW, AI, B'tselem, or Al Haq seriously? Be very clear. As someone who says he's for human rights, I can't understand how Jabarin and those who support him in the human rights community are still okay to you. This should disappoint you but it doesn't seem to be happening.

[Jefferson23]

55. He doesn't have an inhumane worldview,

nor does HRW, AI, and B'tselem. You just don't like what they report.

But duly noted, they are all useless to you.

[shira]

56. Right. It's humane to look the other way and virtually ignore...

and do the following...

Have very little to say about thousands of rockets terrorizing innocent civilians.

Nothing about Hamas human shielding.

Nothing about Palestinian media inciting the population to hatred and more 'martyrdom' (translation: suicide attacks, etc).

Nothing about Hamas treatment of gays, women, christians.

They didn't condemn Hamas for the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange that released hundreds of known terrorists. Think about that one. A Human Rights organization has nothing to say about released, unrepentant terrorists who will most likely return to their terrorist ways. Even if some don't, that exchange sets a terrible precedent and only emboldens Hamas to keep up with their terror attacks with impunity. Who cares if some get caught when they can be released within a short time period?

Nor did they condemn a PFLP member named Hani Rosmi Jaber who was convicted for murder in a terror attack.

Find one thing above that you believe is inaccurate WRT Jabarin and Al Haq. Because if you can't and you still believe humanitarians can get away with the above, you have no business ever bringing up human rights abuses again.

ON EDIT: I can't even find where Al Haq mentioning the anti tank missile that hit a school bus a few months back. What kind of human rights organization ignores something like that?

[Jefferson23]

57. I get it, you hate them..ALL of the human rights groups. n/t

[shira]

58. No, I get that you have little regard for human rights...

...as you apparently don't believe Israelis are entitled to get as much attention WRT human rights abuses as Palestinians.

[Jefferson23]

59. You do have respect for those human rights group?

You could have fooled me..make up your mind already.

[shira]

60. Respect for human rights in general is not the same as respect...

...for particular human rights groups.

Why, I'll bet you also have the same amount of respect for the UNHRC. Am I right? Just as you won't criticize Jabarin and Al Haq, you can't do it WRT the UNHRC either. Correct?

[Jefferson23]

61. All those human rights groups you hate have an excellent

record of exposing abuse. Referring to them as humanitarian racists
as you do says more about you than them.

See ya.

[shira]

62. Wow, I was right. You can't even criticize the UNHRC...

Now THAT's as pathetic as it gets.

I know why you can't do it. It's so transparent. Criticizing the UNHRC undermines their credibility whenever they criticize Israel. You don't like that, so you'll allow for the UNHRC to put Iran and Zimbabwe on the "Commission on the Status of Women". Israel is the only country on the Council's permanent agenda. Not Iran, N.Korea, Syria, Libya, or Sudan. Who gives a f##k what happens in those other nations. They MUST be sacrificed for the greater good, namely DELEGITIMIZING Israel!

I mean damn, the last two UN secretary generals couldn't help but criticize it...

In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[49]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[50]

But the goons running the UNHRC are still your kind of humanitarians.

That's so totally awesome, words can't describe... Just insane. I really have to question what a discredited Human Rights organization would look like to you. What would be the last straw for you?

Obsessing and criticizing Israel takes precedence over far worse human rights abuses not only in the Palestinian territories committed by Hamas and the PLO, but worldwide where hundreds of millions are suffering. Boy, that's the TRUE definition of "Israel Firster"!

[Jefferson23]

63. Do you EVER read what you post?

If any part of any given report was falsified, that should be the main concern.
I don't recall he said or suggested the reports were without adequate
and appropriate corroboration.

It is a good practice to leave a link when you quote someone.

The United States boycotted the Council under Bush but reversed that
under Obama...just so ya know. I guess they did not think them as biased
as you do, overall I mean.

[shira]

64. Oh, the main concern for you is not that other nations are ignored by the UNHRC...

...nations that make Israel look saintly in comparison. That's not a main concern of yours. Screw tens of millions suffering in those regimes. How can that not be a main concern if you really care about human rights?

And because I didn't leave a link (it was wikipedia BTW) you think it's okay to just ignore what the last two secretary generals of the UN said about the UNHRC? You're too lazy to google either of those quotes? I think it's more like you don't care.

When HR organizations deny that Hamas uses Palestinians (even children) as human shields, that's not a concern to you either. Only when Israel allegedly does something to Palestinians are you concerned. Hamas and the PLO can do anything they wish to Palestinians. When's the last time you saw a report by one of your favorite human rights organizations WRT women, gay, or christian rights in the territories? You only care for Palestinians when Israel is the alleged oppressor, right? I shouldn't even have to ask, it's so damned obvious. Talk about Israel Firsters...

Now as to falsified reports against Israel, just how false do they need to be in order for you to be 'concerned' about an HR organization? How many falsified reports would be enough for you?

[Jefferson23]

65. No.

The human rights groups that you detest and do not trust, which is all of them
that have documented the Israeli governments abuses have also reported
on many countries..so the time period in question would be exclusive to UNHRC's
lack of coverage of other nations...according to Ban Ki-moon statements.

This does not equate to other nations abuse being ignored due to neglect for political
reasons by the other human rights groups.

The United States ( Obama) as I said reversed the move by Bush, so I think it
is safe to say he does not see the group as you do.

And yes, it is vital that if any report by the UNHRC was falsified, that should
be the main concern.

The Israeli government is not the only government to deny human rights
abuses..it is a common practice. Other nations accused of wrong doing do not likely
have as strong a supporter coming from their citizens as the Israeli government has in you.

I did not ignore what was said by Ki-moon, I said leaving a link is a good practice...you disagree, evidently.
You do not seem to appreciate that he did not say the reports were false. Whatever political failure
UNHRC is guilty of for that time period, fabrication of reports is not one of them. The reports across many
of the human rights groups often come to the same conclusions, you do not accept any report
they generate.

[shira]

66. So you don't believe Annan and Ban WRT the UNHRC focusing on Israel....

....way to much to the detriment of others suffering abuse worldwide? Or am I misunderstanding you? Obama is trying to make a difference in the UNHRC. He was very clear the when the US entered the UNHRC, one of the main goals was to stop the delegitimization of Israel there. So that's the opposite of what you're trying to peddle here.

Now WRT false reports, I'll give you just one example in which all the major NGO's like HRW and AI, along with the UNHRC falsified allegations vs. Israel. It's an easy one. Look no further than Goldstone's retraction of the charge that Israel intentionally targeted civilians as a matter of policy. Now you may not believe him, but that crushes UNHRC credibility. That was the main conclusion of the report. The UNHRC stood by that even though they had no evidence backing it up. Worse, AI and HRW didn't argue against Goldstone. And in fact, they DISTANCED themselves from their earlier allegations of Israeli malice WRT targeting civilians. THEY fed Goldstone's commission with all those allegations. They NEVER once commented critically against that major allegation once the Goldstone Report was released. Only when Goldstone spilled the beans did they try to clumsily cover their tracks.

It's all here in this one damning article that footnotes all the lies...
http://volokh.com/2011/04/06/human-rights-watch-lies-re-goldstone-retraction/

As I noted a few days ago, Justice Richard Goldstone wrote a Washington Post op-ed last week in which he states that contrary to the implications of his eponymous report, Israel did not deliberately target civilians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.

Human Rights Watch contributed heavily to the content of the Goldstone Report, and has been among the most ardent promoters of the Report. Kenneth Roth, HRW’s director, suggests that HRW has nothing to apologize for because “HRW promoted the Goldstone report’s recommendation for investigations, pushing both Hamas and Israel to investigate its own war crimes. We never endorsed the report’s finding of an Israeli policy to target civilians.”

I originally referenced lying in the title of this post, but that proved to be a distraction, because, as I noted, Roth’s statement isn’t quite a lie, but perhaps a dishonest obfuscation. Roth chose his words carefully, and I suppose it’s technically true that HRW never explicitly endorsed a Goldstone Report finding that Israel had a policy of targeting civilians (although, see below, on Oct. 1, 2009, Roth himself pretty much did).

But let’s review some of the statements (I read some, but not all, of HRW’s many reports on Cast Lead to find these) that HRW did make, and see whether a reasonable observer would conclude that HRW publicly and loudly agreed with the premise that Israel deliberately targeted civilians during Operation Cast Lead. I think the answer is obvious, and it’s yet another blow to HRW’s credibility, both because of its conflict with Goldstone’s current position, and because of Roth’s current misrepresentation of HRW’s views. (In none of the statements excerpted below did HRW provide any caveats to the effect that the incidents in question may have involved rogue soldiers or units, as opposed to being Israeli policy).

Let’s start with Mr. Roth himself, writing in the Jerusalem Post on Aug. 25, 2009:

Israel could have conducted the war by targeting only combatants (editor: if Israel could have but didn’t target only combatants, doesn’t that mean she targeted noncombatants, i.e., civilians?) and taking all feasible precautions to spare civilians, as required by international humanitarian law. That is mandated even though Hamas often violated these rules, because violations by one side do not justify violations by the other.

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

(Update: Roth again, Dec. 29, 2009 : “Israel’s view that one prevails in asymmetric warfare by pummeling rather than protecting civilians is not only illegal but also counterproductive.”

And one more time, Oct. 1, 2009: “Richard Goldstone’s charge that Israel implemented a deliberate and systematic policy to inflict suffering on civilians in Gaza is not, as you said, the ‘central organising premise’ of his report. Rather it is the conclusion of the report arrived at after a serious examination of the evidence.”

Then there is Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW’s Middle East division, speaking in Saudi Arabia in May 2009: “Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets.”

<snip>

more at the link above...

[Jefferson23]

67. It may be lost to you that Obama does not hold the view you do

about UNHRC...he reversed it because he found all their work flawed as
you do? lol. There are other countries in the world other than Israel.

You're funny.


Save your Bernstein article for someone else...this is old news so
save your breath.



Richard Goldstone, he has to live with his recantation, he owns it
and all its intended ambiguity...with it Goldstone did extend Israel a great
favor..for the Palestinians, no. One thing that did help the Palestinians
indirectly was the press coverage his recant produced and the other
authors of the report have voiced their own statements reaffirming
the report. But it was the Palestinian leadership in Geneva that ruined
the chances for the report to go forward..that was not Goldstone's
fault. AI and HRW condemned the HRC after the first postponement
and rightly so.

The HRC did not recommend the report at the time before
the recantation to the General Assembly and the Security
Council due to the Palestinian delegation...so this was more
complicated than you seem to recall it. With each follow up they
requested, which was about 3 months long each, they lost momentum.

They have to live with that too.

I think it is worth remembering that Goldstone called out the
Israeli government like no one had before, and they saw him
as an enormous threat.

The right wing neocons pummeled Goldstone, Bibi declared him one of the 3 main
threats to Israel after Iran, missiles, there was the Goldstone threat.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=164050

The recant deeply hurt a movement but there
will be another way for the Palestinians to be heard.

There is no doubt in my mind about that.

[shira]

69. You're still ignoring the obvious.....why? I'll remind you again...

1. Annan and Moon, the last two secretary generals (leaders) of the UN said the UNHRC's obsession with Israel is bad for the rest of the world. What do you have to say about that? You disagree? If so, why? These guys aren't shlubs you ignore if they're pounding away at Israel. Now when you see they've delegitimized the UNHRC (not that putting Iran on the Women's Rights commission, among other things, delegitimizes them) you have nothing to say.



2. I gave you damning evidence in my last post to you - evidence you completely ignored. You said the main problem, if there's a problem at all with HR groups, is if they ever falsify reports. Well here's one of the latest examples of many...

I'll give you just one example in which all the major NGO's like HRW and AI, along with the UNHRC falsified allegations vs. Israel. It's an easy one. Look no further than Goldstone's retraction of the charge that Israel intentionally targeted civilians as a matter of policy. Now you may not believe him, but that crushes UNHRC credibility. That was the main conclusion of the report. The UNHRC stood by that even though they had no evidence backing it up. Worse, AI and HRW didn't argue against Goldstone. And in fact, they DISTANCED themselves from their earlier allegations of Israeli malice WRT targeting civilians. THEY fed Goldstone's commission with all those allegations. They NEVER once commented critically against that major allegation once the Goldstone Report was released. Only when Goldstone spilled the beans did they try to clumsily cover their tracks.

It's all here in this one damning article that footnotes all the lies...
http://volokh.com/2011/04/06/human-rights-watch-lies-re-goldstone-retraction/

You can whine and cry all you want about Goldstone's retraction. The thing is, HRW and AI went right along with Goldstone's retraction. They said they never agreed that Israel targeted Palestinians as a matter of policy, which was the main conclusion of the Goldstone Commission. So all you really have are the other members of the Goldstone Commission, going up against not only Goldstone but also HRW and AI. Neither you or them can let go of a good demonization narrative. It's all about demonization of israel for you, not the Palestinians.

The link provided for you (volokh.com) has quotes from HRW that can easily be found with a simple google search. They show both HRW and AI in harmony with Goldstone's original allegations. Allegations they backed away from once he recanted.

IOW, they all lied. And rather than admit it, they're trying to weasel their way out. But that's too much for you. They can't just back down from a good demonization effort. That's what you're angry about, not their obvious lies.

And you're pretending it's just all about Goldstone and that the link provided proves nothing about HRW and AI lies (as well as the UNHRC which employed Goldstone).

Hilarious.

I knew that no amount of evidence provided to you (or your like minded friends here) would ever be enough to convince you.

[Jefferson23]

70. I already addressed Ki-moon's statements..you don't like what I said, too bad.

You seem to think if you repeat over and over to the person you disagree with
to admit what you want them to, they will at some point submit to you...you're
mistaken.

lol@ whining and crying about Goldstone's recant..you're amusing in a desperate
vein shira.

I think it is important for anyone who supports Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians
especially about OCL, is to understand they decided not to cooperate with the human rights
groups and made the decision about controlling a free press. Mr Bernstein expresses no concerns
for this behavior that I am aware of.

Israel ranks low for freedom of press, after Gaza war media ban
Israel falls to No. 93 of 175 countries indexed in 2009; Iran places No. 172, in wake of post-election violence.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-ranks-low-for-freedom-of-press-after-gaza-war-media-ban-1.5765

Mr. Bernstein is a trusted source for you, but his words don't match up his
claims..which he pretty much admits, but does so in an unprofessional manner.


David Bernstein Misrepresents Human Rights Watch (Yet Again)

by Kevin Jon Heller

This time concerning the Goldstone Report and whether Israel intentionally targeted civilians during Operation Cast Lead as a matter of policy. You know a post is in trouble when it’s entitled “Human Rights Watch Lies re: Goldstone Retraction,” but then states, three paragraphs later, “Well, maybe lying isn’t quite right. Roth chose his words carefully, and I suppose it’s technically true that HRW never explicitly endorsed a Goldstone Report finding that Israel had a policy of targeting civilians.” So HRW is lying, except that it’s not.

The misleading title, however, is far from the biggest problem with the post. Even worse is Bernstein’s inability to understand what Goldstone retracted and what HRW has said about Israel’s ostensible policy of intentionally targeting civilians. Here is the relevant paragraph from Goldstone’s editorial (emphasis added):
http://opiniojuris.org/2011/04/06/david-bernstein-misrepresents-human-rights-watch-yet-again/


Mr. Roth in his own words, Gaza: the stain remains on Israel's war record 2011

Richard Goldstone's partial retraction of his own report doesn't excuse the conduct of Israel's war in Gaza
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/gaza-stain-remains-israel-war-record


If you actually read the Goldstone report it never stated or implied that the main
objective of Israel's attack was to murder Palestinians. If the report came to that
conclusion they would have labeled it genocide..it did no such thing.

The report did say that the invasion of Gaza was a "deliberately
disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a
civilian population.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm

Yoram Dinstein on international law: there is no genuine difference between a
premeditated attack against civilians ( or civilian objects) and a reckless disregard
of the principle of distinction between civilians or civilian objects and combatants
or military objects...they're equally forbidden.( Law of International Armed Conflict.)

Among other players and reports, Ms.Livni for one, provided statements reflecting
her thoughts on OCL.

Speaking at an Institute for National Security Studies conference, Livni said that "the operation in Gaza was necessary. Operation Cast Lead achieved its goal, which was to restore Israel's deterrence ability, and managed to restore Israel's deterrence ability.
She also said that she was proud of the achievements of Operation Cast Lead.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3820134,00.html

Ms Livni declared yesterday that the military offensive had "restored Israel's deterrence ... Hamas now understands that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild – and this is a good thing."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-cabinet-divided-over-fresh-gaza-surge-1332024.html

Her regard for the law:

snip* This is a main principle. Part of the TOR. This is what will make the Arab states come.



[Recap the points.]



AA:

International law?



TL:

NO. I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law -- international law in particular. Law in general.
If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.



[TL made the point that Palestinians don’t really need international law. Palestinians protest this assertion. AA raises examples of where it is important, such as water, and that it is key for the parties to agree what the permanent status agreements will be based on. Abr says that the agreement will be whatever is agreed at the table. At one point during this discussion, SE raises a problem with the “as adopted” language with respect to the Roadmap and previous agreements, noting that this would encompass the Israeli reservations which is not acceptable to the Palestinian side.]
http://transparency.aljazeera.net/document/2003


Have a good day and good luck.


on edit for clarity.

[shira]

71. You ignored both Annan and Moon...

Here's what they said...

In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[49]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#UN_Secretaries_General

There's no way to read each statement as anything but the fact that the UNHRC spends WAY too much time on Israel and that the council should spend at least as much time on other issues worldwide. That's a HUGE problem for someone trying to portray him or herself as someone who is for universal human rights. It doesn't phase you in the least. That's very telling.

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

As to Goldstone and HRW, click HERE to read what Ken Roth of HRW wrote...

“Richard Goldstone’s charge that Israel implemented a deliberate and systematic policy to inflict suffering on civilians in Gaza is not, as you said, the ‘central organising premise’ of his report. Rather it is the conclusion of the report arrived at after a serious examination of the evidence.”

Click below (sorry for the huge link but AI has conveniently erased the original PDF link) to see what Amnesty International wrote just 2 weeks before Goldstone's Retraction:

"Israeli forces killed civilians using precision weaponry, launched indiscriminate attacks which failed to distinguish legitimate military targets from civilians, and attacked civilian property and infrastructure.”
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VgI3ZSMOhyUJ:www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/021/2011/en/c50ed2d5-b91b-4463-a9e5-4131458f0f09/mde150212011en.pdf+amnesty+%22israeli+forces+killed+civilians+using+precision%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShMirObMVhVhicFR3PP-d-PLMazP-faHuzz7oJOExALv0HJEI-fsWYUkxSHwWRXtBX_ajb9Cd9WLq9Ug1qz8bJJpWZCBhE7QJrqtu70TVj90lAMG2rMuCiGWjSQTzx_tOxhT1fQ&sig=AHIEtbQ5J6qPW1oiLy68XJ5DzMOTI2r7Sw

The quotes are real. Goldstone retracted from the main conclusion of his report. HRW and AI retreated as well from their previous positions, most likely b/c they backed Goldstone big time prior to his retraction (and they can't simply tear themselves from him). Also, if they attacked Goldstone for retracting, they fear he'd lash back and embarass them even more.

Here's HRW's backtracking:

“HRW promoted the Goldstone report’s recommendation for investigations, pushing both Hamas and Israel to investigate its own war crimes. We never endorsed the report’s finding of an Israeli policy to target civilians.”

Now, while that's technically not a lie, it's still dishonest. Not only will you NOT be able to find HRW arguing against Goldstone's conclusion (sure, they didn't endorse it but they had no problem with it) there are many quotes at the volokh.com site showing they promoted Goldstone's original conclusion.
http://justjournalism.com/wp-login.php?redirect_to=/the-wire/hrw-defends-goldstone-report-in-the-guardian/

AI backtracked as well:

“Amnesty International has not argued that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) targeted Palestinian civilians ‘as a matter of policy’, but rather that IDF rules of engagement and actions during the conflict failed to take sufficient precautions to minimize civilian casualties.”
http://www.juancole.com/2011/04/amnesty-intl-united-nations-must-reject-israeli-campaign-to-avoid-accountability-for-gaza-war-crimes.html

So the question to you is not why Goldstone retracted (which I know you hate) but moreso WHY did HRW and AI also change their positions to match his after the retraction? They had no problem with his original conclusion and they didn't criticize him for changing positions later.

I don't expect you to seriously address the questions. No one honest could even attempt to defend the indefensible. You'll keep on pretending HRW and AI, as well as the UNHRC, have never falsified information. No matter how much evidence is presented.

[Jefferson23]

72. I answered your questions shira, you don't agree with what

was actually said and meant, Bernstein even admits it...there is nothing left for me to say..we don't agree.



You: " No one honest could even attempt to defend the indefensible...."



Coming from you, I can live with your opinion of me..no sweat.

[shira]

73. You answered with more obfuscation. That doesn't equate to answering direct...

...questions honestly. You'll find that your opponents here always try hard to answer your questions/points straight on, without any bullshit diversionary tactics, dishonesty, or obfuscation.

[azurnoir]

74. shira the document you claim AI has removed (huge link)is easily availible on their website

in its entirety

Today’s resolution was drafted by the Palestinian Authority and adopted by the Human Rights Council with 27 states voting in favour, three against, and 16 abstentions. It follows the second report of a Committee of Independent Experts, established to monitor the domestic investigations into violations committed during the conflict, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council on 18 March 2011. The report concurred with Amnesty International’s assessment that – more than 18 months since the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict documented crimes under international law committed by both sides – the Israeli authorities and the Hamas de facto administration have failed to conduct investigations meeting the required international standards of independence, impartiality, thoroughness, effectiveness and promptness.


The September 2009 report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission, led by Justice Richard Goldstone, concluded that both the Israeli military and Palestinian armed groups had committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity during the conflict. It recommended that if the authorities failed to conduct credible, independent investigations meeting international standards within six months, the Security Council should refer the issue to the ICC. Today’s resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council recommends that the General Assembly reconsider the UN Fact-Finding Mission report at its 66th session, which begins in September 2011, and refer the report to the Security Council, which has not yet considered it.


The General Assembly has already twice called on the domestic authorities to conduct credible, independent investigations into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law documented by the UN Fact-Finding Mission, in resolutions adopted in November 2009 and February 2010. Those calls have clearly been ignored, and the General Assembly must submit the issue to the Security Council without delay. In doing so, the General Assembly should also ensure that the two reports of the Committee of Independent Experts are brought before the Security Council, despite the fact that today’s Human Rights Council resolution failed to refer these reports to the General Assembly.


Meanwhile, Amnesty International notes that the ICC Prosecutor has yet to seek a determination from the judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber on whether he can open an investigation into crimes committed during the conflict on the basis of a declaration issued by the Palestinian Authority in January 2009. That declaration accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC over crimes “committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002.” Legal experts dispute whether the Palestinian Authority is a “state” capable of making such a declaration under the Rome Statute. If the judges were to determine that the ICC could act on the declaration, a referral by the Security Council would not be required for the ICC to open an investigation. Amnesty International continues to urge the ICC Prosecutor to seek this determination as soon as possible.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/021/2011/en/8d30cd31-448a-4b10-9c02-cd4da79939e7/mde150212011en.html

one can only wonder why you would chose a source that can not be cut and pasted from

[shira]

75. Oh good! I googled the quote and only found it in PDF form with a quick view option...

...from google docs.

So why do you think AI changed their position WRT Israel intentionally targeting civilians?

[azurnoir]

76. really you need to read what AI said

they did not say Israel intentionally targeted civilians, they said that neither Israel or Hamas have conducted proper investigations into allegations of war crimes of which both are accused

[Violet_Crumble]

27. No, the real issue here is the mistreatment of Palestinian children in Israeli prisons...

Try and focus. The real issue isn't you going and smearing a member of an organisation in order to try to make out that the claims made about the mistreatment of children is wrong.

You claimed that the claims are questionable, so here's yr chance. Explain why those claims aren't true, and why hundreds of Palestinian children are liars. I'm waiting patiently....

[shira]

31. When apologists for Jew hating murderers claim anything against Israel, it's suspect...

From Al Haq:

Although resistance against occupation and its arbitrary practices is legitimate under international law, and these acts are considered a part of the Palestinian people's resistance and struggle against occupation in order to achieve their right to liberation and independence, the occupation forces call it “terrorism” or “destructive acts”.

http://asp.alhaq.org/zalhaq/site/eDocs/txtDocs/Presentations/pres_randa_280403.htm

Shawan Jabarin heads Al Haq and is on the board at DCI. HRW has appointed this neo-nazi to their advisory board. I'll tell you what. When you come back and write that you don't have a problem with nasty Kahanist settlers heading up phony human rights organizations that bash Arabs, claiming that murdering them is legitimate resistance, and you take their claims seriously, then we can continue this conversation.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. So you don't actually have anything at all to back up yr claims that kids aren't being mistreated...

All yr offering is smear jobs and shoot the messenger type tactics....

Glad that's settled. So now we're all in agreement that Palestinian children are being mistreated in Israeli prisons, I hope you take the time to go and watch the video I posted in this thread. Who knows? You might even decide that the mistreatment of children is an important enough thing to discuss!

[Jefferson23]

10. There is a simple test to determine if you're a humanitarian racist, don't ya know this Violet?

Ignore the documentation I posted, regard the word of the Israeli government as
true blue....get with program.

A simple test:
I have developed a simple test to recognize the humanitarian racists amongst those who de-legitimize Israel. One only has to ask these extreme critics of Israel a few questions or investigate their statements and publications. The first question is: “Can you show me where and how often you have exposed the substantial percentage of Muslims in the world who support suicide bombings or the genocidal worldview of Osama Bin Laden?”


The second question: “Your government is committed under the UN genocide convention to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before an international court, because he threatens the State of Israel with genocide. How often have you called upon your government to do so?”


The third question: “Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous worldview that permeates Palestinian society, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?”



If one finds that these critics of Israel have remained silent or said little on any of these issues, they can be “outed” as humanitarian racists. One can apply this humanitarian racism test to politicians, church leaders, journalists, academics as well as to Jewish and Israeli critics of the Jewish state.


This simple test will also reveal the many humanitarian racists in foreign and Israeli human rights organizations. The European Union subsidizes several of the latter bodies. By doing so, it thus has become a supporter of racism.


Humanitarian racism is one of the many aspects that will have to be investigated in detail, in order to understand the new criminal currents that have emerged in European societies and the European Union itself.


Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has published 20 books. He is Chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4179427,00.html



ROFL

[Violet_Crumble]

13. OMG. I thought that was some sort of parody when I first read it....

He's kinda obsessed with Muslims, isn't he?

“Can you show me where and how often you have exposed the substantial percentage of Muslims in the world who support suicide bombings or the genocidal worldview of Osama Bin Laden?”

and

“Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous worldview that permeates Palestinian society, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?”

So according to that nasty bigot, a substantial percentage of Muslims support suicide bombings, and Palestinian society is a murderous one. Anyone answering 'yes! I point that out all the time!' to those questions is every bit as much a bigot as the creep who wrote that article....

[Jefferson23]

18. I found his question so up in the air, for one..he doesn't

state what is the criteria to fit the "extreme" critics? I imagine this is his attempt
to suggest not all critics are humanitarian racists, lol. Mr Fair Minded.

In order to be free of the label, one needs to state where, not only how often. So
where is the magic place and how many times does one need to have exposed the substantial
percentage...lol. I like how he avoids defining "substantial percentage" too.

Just what is the lucky number of times one needs to say such things to receive a
get out of humanitarian racist title card...once may not be enough...LOL.

You are quite right of course, his bigotry jumps off the page.

What I found amusing was his "simple test"..this moron has hit a new low.

[shira]

14. What's wrong with the 3rd question?

“Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous (antisemitic) worldview that permeates Palestinian society, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?”


And how is it possible for Israel's harshest "humanitarian" critics to obsessively bash Israel without once mentioning the insane amount of genocidal antisemitic rhetoric saturating Palestinian media, schools, mosques, and gov't institutions?

[Violet_Crumble]

17. It's engaging in negative stereotyping of an entire people, that's what's wrong with it...

I'm pretty sure most DUers would grasp that very simple concept. It's wrong and ugly to do such broad and negative stereotypes of Israelis, and it's equally wrong to do it about Palestinians. It's interesting to note that those who don't see any problem with negative broadbrushing of Palestinians and the society they live in have little to no actual knowledge of them. I recall back at DU2 when I gave you a list of books so you could learn about Palestinians and their society, you weren't interested...

On edit: I'm wondering if you can't see what was wrong with the first question either. “Can you show me where and how often you have exposed the substantial percentage of Muslims in the world who support suicide bombings or the genocidal worldview of Osama Bin Laden?”

If you can't, I'm more than willing to explain it for you so that you can hopefully understand....

[shira]

19. That third question isn't negative stereotyping an entire people...

Here's the question again:

“Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous (antisemitic) worldview that permeates Palestinian society, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?”

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

That's not a knock on all Palestinians. Profoundly murderous antisemitism does permeate Palestinian society (in the media, schools, mosques) due to Hamas and the PLO. It's mostly the fault of Hamas and the PLO. As bad as people like David Duke are, the PLO and Hamas are far worse. David Duke doesn't explicitly call for the murder of Jews, or cheer on any neo-nazi who attempts to kill Jews. Hamas and the PLO encourage, cheer on, and reward Palestinians who set out to deliberately kill Jews.

FTR, I don't like some of what I read in Gerstenfeld's article. I don't know if there's something in the translation or just the fact that Gerstenfeld's a bigot or rightwinger. I don't have to agree with his views to know that he brings up a valid point WRT question #3. Asserting that question #3 is bigoted is nothing more than a diversion in order to get out of having to answer the question. When Israel's most harsh critics fail to say a word about Hamas and the PLO's insanely murderous antisemitism, that says something.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Yes, it is. It would be if it was aimed at Israelis, and it's the same when aimed at Palestinians...

You don't know anything about Palestinian society. You expressed no interest in learning when I provided you with a list of books to read so you could educate yrself a bit on it. Yet you continue to behave as though yr some expert on Palestinian society, and the picture you paint is of a society that's evil and has no redeeming features.

You don't like some of what you read in Gerstendeld's article, yet you had no problem with posting it here and lending support to it?? That's strange, because if it was an article containing bigotry against Jews, you sure wouldn't be posting it. In fact, you'd be condemning it and its writer and not giving a shit about the little parts of it you agree with. What you need to start doing is approaching all forms of bigotry as though it were antisemitism, and start exchanging the word Jew for Muslim in articles you read that have things that you 'don't like' parts of. Then ask yrself if you want to be associated with something like that...

The PLO's 'insanely murderous antisemitism'? Oh yeah, the lunatics who compare the PLO to the Nazis and godwinise at the drop of a hat. I couldn't give a flying fuck what any of those morons demand people do, especially when it comes from anti-Muslim bigots like the one who wrote the article...

[shira]

33. The PLO says resistance (the murdering of Jews) is legitimate...

They encourage and reward murderers of Jews.

You don't believe that's insanely antisemitic? That this murderous antisemitism doesn't permeate Palestinian society? Tell me which leaders in Palestinian society are standing up against the murdering of innocent Jews and condemning it for being a sick and disgusting display of antisemitism?

You don't get to lecture others about bigotry when you refuse to see what's going on in Palestinian society - and worse - when you cannot utterly condemn it.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Complete and utter bullshit. The PLO does NOT say the murdering of Jews is legitimate....

I'll file that one in the overflowing demonisation file

As I said in my earlier post, you have no knowledge of Palestinian society, and when I offered you a list of books to read on it, you showed a distinct lack of interest, yet continue to go on as though yr some expert on Palestinian society. The pictures you paint of Palestinian society is always one of ugliness and evil. It's as though there's some one-dimensional cartoon style lens that Palestinians are viewed through, and anything that's positive is filtered out. Anyone who claims that Palestinian society is antisemitic, comparable to Nazis, evil, etc, is engaging in bigotry whether they like it or not. I've seen people make similar ugly broadbrush generalisations about Israeli society, and like you've done, they'll sit there and defend what they say. Whether it's aimed at Israelis or Palestinians, it's wrong....

Guess what? The great thing about DU3 is I get to say what I want to say, and what I want to say is that I find it incredibly disturbing that you not only posted that article which contained bigoted comments, but then tried to claim that you only care about the bits that aren't bigoted. Does that mean we can all run off and find stuff by antisemites and start posting it and go 'oh, I don't agree with everything they say, but look at the second line in the third paragraph. It's awesome!' I think not....

[shira]

36. Yeah, actually they do. They just call it legitimate "resistance" instead of...

...calling it legitimate murdering of Jews. PA controlled media, mosques, and schools are saturated with this ideology that encourages and rewards the murdering of innocent Jews. Just because they call it "resistance" doesn't take away from that fact. They don't just target random Israelis and cheer on or reward the murder of non-Jewish Israelis. Their media is full of evidence showing that the targets are in fact Jews. You must think people are stupid and don't realize this resistance is nothing more than cheering on of antisemitic, pathological murder of Jews. Don't insult the collective intelligence of this board by trying to argue "resistance to occupation" is anything other than a call to murder Jews.

And for the last time, you don't get to lecture others about bigotry. Not when you're unwilling to condemn the outright hatred and murdering of Jews, or call out human rights organizations for employing heads of terror organizations dedicated to killing Jews. Not when you cannot even name one liberal Muslim reformer against militant or ultra-conservative Islamist ideology. Not when you just recently (last month in fact) linked to an article by an extremely bigoted and hateful Khaled Amayreh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x366266#367334

[Violet_Crumble]

48. No, actually they don't say it at all. You falsely claim they say it...

...and when called on it, claim that yr rather strange interpretation of something else actually translates as that....

Here's a novel idea. Instead of responding to what I've said about Palestinian society by just repeating exactly what you said in the previous post, how about showing some interest in actually learning about Palestinian society? There's a real depth and history to it that you appear not to be aware of. I could point you to a few books about it if yr interested...

I'm not sure why you think you can sit there and tell people what they can and can't do. If I want to talk about double standards when it comes to bigotry, then guess what? I'm going to do it. See, you wouldn't be okay at all if someone were to post an article from an antisemitic type and then claim that while there's bits they don't agree with, the rest is great, so why is it okay to do that same thing when it comes to Muslims? It's not...

[shira]

49. How many examples do you require in order to see that they really do say it?

The PLO or PA (Fatah) runs the W.Bank. They are in charge of everything, from media (TV, radio, newspapers) to education and religious matters. They appoint religious authorities as well as people in charge of the press (TV, radio), education ministry, etc. They will not allow those they appoint to contradict their views and they rarely, if ever, fire people for airing toxic antisemitic views (unless pressured from the outside).

If you don't agree with that and I show you example after example of murderous antisemitism that permeates the PA controlled W.Bank, there's no sense continuing.

In addition, if you dismiss or ignore explicit video or press clippings from Palestinian media, religious services, and education (by claiming for example that video evidence is no good if it comes from what you perceive as a bigoted or rightwing source) then there's no point going forward. Not when you make such a claim and can't back it up with evidence that the source cannot be trusted.

So what will it be?

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

WRT your outrage at rightwing or bigoted sources, all I see is hypocrisy on your part. You don't even admit some of your sources are rightwing or bigoted. You keep attacking others for things you do (and you do it more frequently than your opponents here) rather than take responsibility for your own actions. I gave 4 examples in my last post to you. How about answering to that first before you continue to attack with what I perceive to be sanctimonious outrage. It would then be easier for us both to continue debating.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. All I've seen so far is yr opinion, based on the opinions of zealoted American 'pro-Israel' groups..

I'm strongly suggesting to you that you need to read some books on Palestinian society, because it's a rich and complex one full of many positives, and anyone who paints it as a bunch of antisemitic maniacs who are akin to the Nazis has no knowledge of what they're talking about...

It's inteersting that you bring up the subject of firing people for bigoted views. I don't recall that the Israeli government ever fired the guy they sent over here as ambassador, who promptly engaged in a speech ranting about how Israelis and Australians were 'white people' and should fight against those damn Asians

No, what you don't seem to be grasping is that quite a few of those 'pro-Israeli' sites you cite are bigots themselves. Look at Barry Rubin, who's clearly an anti-Muslim bigot, and the article you posted here that contained obvious anti-Muslim sentiment. They can go for their lives shovelling out supposed 'evidence' of what a society is, but the problem is the same as when it's done to Israelis - it's very easy to engage in selective blindness and take one specific thing and build it up into a mountain where it becomes the entire society....

As to yr last paragraph, hypocrisy is when someone repeatedly posts articles from anti-Muslim bigots and when asked about it claims something along the lines of they're not reading them for the stuff they don't agree with, but for that last two sentences in the fourth paragraph. Given that you do tend to fling around accusations of antisemitism as though there's a dollar earned for each one, and good folk such as that Arab/American comedian who's name escapes me, a Holocaust survivor, and Robert Malley from International Crisis Group have all been labelled as people engaging in antisemitism (notably with no explanation as to why in each case), it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to anti-Muslim bigotry. Then the net becomes so narrow that it's only if Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch says something along the lines of 'all Muslims must die' that it qualifies as bigotry....

Debating? All I'm interested in doing is supplying anyone who reads this exchange with actual information about Palestinian society, as opposed to the 'they're murderous antisemitic Nazis!' crap. And for anyone onlookers, one book I'd strongly recommend to give some background and depth is Baruch Kimmerling's 'The Palestinian People: A History' as a good starting point. Of course, there's those who prefer their visions of Palestinians in that one-dimensional Romney way, and for those folk, there's no point reading anything....

[Jefferson23]

22. Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous ( Islamaphobic) worldview

that permeates Israeli society?



See how that moronic stuff he wrote works now?

[shira]

24. That's a moronic comparison. You don't think there's a significant....

....problem WRT Jew hating bigots in the Palestinian territories who want Jews dead, do you? Or that Hamas and the PLO explicitly encourage, cheer it on, and reward such activity?

[Jefferson23]

26. Your response is very interesting and likely explains why you posted the OP in the first place. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Yep. The double standards are mind boggling n/t

[shira]

32. So you're denying murderous antisemitism is a significant problem in the Palestinian territories?

Both the PLO and Hamas say resistance (murdering of Jews) is legitimate. The Palestinian media, schools, mosques, and government institutions are saturated with this ideology. The murdering of innocent Jews is not only encouraged in Palestinian society, but also rewarded.

But you don't see the problem here, right?

[shira]

5. Guardian's Israel correspondent promotes agenda of radical anti-Israel NGO

On Saturday February 16th 2002, at around 7:45 p.m., an 18 year-old terrorist – wearing an explosive vest containing 25 pounds of nails for added damage – walked into a pizza parlour in the crowded shopping mall in Karnei Shomron and detonated his device.

Two teenagers were killed instantly, some thirty people (many of them children) were injured – six of them seriously – and one died of her wounds 11 days later. Rachel Thaler was 16 years old, Keren Shatsky and Nehemia Amar were both 15 when they were murdered.

One member at that time of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – the organisation which later claimed responsibility for that terror attack – is named Shahwan Jabarin.

Strangely, (at least according to Western standards) for someone involved with an organisation with such obvious disregard for the lives of either terror victims or the brainwashed teenagers sent to perpetrate terror attacks, he is today active in the field of ‘human rights’ NGOs as director of ‘Al Haq’ and a board member of ‘Human Rights Watch’. He also sits on the board of an organisation named Defence for Children International – Palestine (DCI-Pal).

http://cifwatch.com/2012/01/24/political-activism-as-journalism-harriet-sherwood-promotes-agenda-of-radical-anti-israel-ngo/

[bemildred]

2. +1.

You want better people, you have to raise them better, one by one.

[azurnoir]

9. seems Palestinian children are less so tha others to some here

Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I seem to remember a rather spirited defense of IDF killing them being made here recently especially if they were male and at least 15

but despite all the evidence presented here that the only reason Palestinian children grow up to hate Israel is their education system

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Cell 36: Palestinian children locked in solitary confinement in Israel - video

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jan/23/cell36-aljalame-prison-israel-solitary-confinement-palestinian-children?intcmp=239

[Jefferson23]

42. 15 Jan. '12: Judge holds confession of Palestinian minor admissible, although it was obtained

through breach of his rights.


On 9 January 2012, Israeli Military Youth Court judge Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai held that the confession given to the police by I.D., a 14-year-old Palestinian boy from a-Nabi Saleh, interrogated on suspicion of stone throwing, was admissible. The judge admitted the confession even though the minor had been questioned in breach of his rights under Israel’s Youth Law, whose spirit, according to the Military Appeals Court, applies also in adjudication of Palestinian minors in the military courts.

I.D. was arrested at home in the middle of the night. He was not allowed to rest, eat, or go to the bathroom and, from the morning, was interrogated for more than seven hours. He was interrogated, without his parents present, by three or four interrogators, only one of whom is a trained youth interrogator – although even he is not currently functioning in that capacity and has not undergone retraining following the changes in the Youth Law made in 2008.

Despite the fact that I.D.’s attorney contacted the interrogators before the interrogation began, I.D. was only allowed to consult with him five and a half hours of interrogation. One of the interrogators read I.D. his rights three times, each time omitting the right to remain silent and emphasizing that he must tell the whole truth.
Under interrogation, I.D. admitted to throwing stones and incriminated two persons from his village in organizing demonstrations and inciting villagers to throw stones.

I.D.’s attorney complained that his client’s confession had been obtained through use of improper means and should not be allowed into evidence. As a result, the court held a trial-within-a-trial, in which the judge ruled that the confession was admissible.

in full: http://www.btselem.org/torture/20120115_flawed_confession_of_minor_held_admissible

[azurnoir]

43. so confessions 'coerced ' from Palestinian minors (chilldren) are okay in Israel

interesting but gotta keep that military court conviction rate at 99.74% who knows with judgements like these it may even 'improve'

[Jefferson23]

44. It's all blown out of proportion...don't you realize this??

Kidding aside, anything goes because who is going to stop them?

[azurnoir]

45. short answer nobody long answer

it's possible that someday the someone will don't know who IMO Israel doesn't give a flying f##K about the EU China is an unknown quantity and the US well Congress giving Netanyahu 29 standing ovations ...........