Promoting the al-Dura myth: Role of Amnesty Int. and HRW

[shira]

Promoting the Al Dura Myth: The Role of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

The French court’s dismissal of the libel case brought by France 2 TV, in response to evidence that the death of Muhammad al-Dura was staged, has increased the examination of the NGO campaigns that propelled this issue.

The unquestioned repetition of claims by Palestinian “eyewitnesses” without further investigation reflects the standard pattern used by Amnesty International and HRW in condemning Israel for alleged human rights violations.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report that labeled al Dura’s alleged death as “a case of indiscriminate and illegal use of force.” HRW’s lengthy report based on “the accounts of eyewitnesses” simply repeated the claims of the Palestinian cameraman for France 2, without any independent verification.

HRW’s press release (November 21 2000) ostensibly condemned a Palestinian bombing attack on an Israeli school bus, in which a number of teachers and children were killed and injured. But most of this document refers to the “indiscriminate or excessive use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF),” citing the al Dura allegations, and anonymous witnesses.

more...

http://www.upjf.org/actualitees-upjf/article-14587-145-7-promoting-al-dura-myth-role-amnesty-international-human-rights-watch-ngo-monitor.html

[shira]

1. Amnesty's dirty little secret

Amnesty’s dirty little secret
By Charles Jacobs - Tuesday July 29 2008


Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are attacking Israel for acting in self-defense against Hezbollah, accusing her of “war crimes” and “indiscriminate bombardment” in Lebanon. These groups have a long, documented record of disproportionately picking on the Jewish state, so these latest condemnations cannot surprise us. However, Jews will not understand this reflexive anti-Israel attitude unless they step back and examine today’s broad human rights agenda, which is blind to the world’s most oppressed people.

In 1993 I realized that human rights groups are not actually working for universal human rights. I read in the Economist that black women and children could be bought or sold for $15 dollars in Sudan and Mauritania. I called Amnesty and Human Rights Watch to see if they knew. They knew. They sent me their reports on the issue.

Guardians of “human rights” knew that tens of thousands of blacks were being enslaved, yet they were not making a fuss. Why? Apart from guarding life itself, what is more central and sacred to human rights champions than guarding personal liberty – the freedom from being “owned” by another person?

So I went to Amnesty’s national convention and proposed that Amnesty International include emancipation of today’s slaves – numbering 27 million, mostly in the Third World – in their mandate. After a long floor debate, I lost.

Amnesty International won’t fight hard against Arab enslavement of blacks because their unstated, subconscious principles downplay non-Western crimes.

The human rights community consists mostly of decent middle-class white people who, when they see – or think they see – evil done by Westerners like themselves, who feel impelled to act. Think apartheid South Africa, Kosovo, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo.

But when these same folks see evil done by non-Westerners, they choke. It’s prejudiced, they feel, to criticize non-Westerners, and they live in dread of being labeled racist, or worse, “Islamophobic.”

Rather than bringing universal justice to those whose very lives depend on them, human rights groups are narcissistically expiating Western guilt. In the Muslim world there are millions of blacks, women, gays, apostates, atheists, labor leaders, freedom fighters and racial and religious minorities who live without basic human rights and who desperately need help from the human rights community. Yet Amnesty and others ignore non-Western totalitarianism so that they can define themselves in opposition to Western sins – imperialism, colonialism and racism.

White guilt – not anti-Semitism – explains the disproportionate attacks on Israel. Human rights groups frame Israelis as “white, Western, colonialists,” and Palestinians as “indigenous, dark-skinned, and poor.”

It is horribly wrong for “rights” activists to project their white guilt onto Israel, but that may not be the worst crime. In order to pound Israel (and America), Amnesty and other groups must look away, and stay out of the path of non-Western despots, who then oppress millions with impunity. Amnesty’s sin is against those they have abandoned in order to, they think, make themselves clean.

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/columnists/jacobs/?content_id=1810

[shira]

2. quite despicable

You'd think we could expect Amnesty International to narrow their focus on real humanitarian issues around the world rather than report vicious slander and perpetuate modern day blood libels against Israel. Not surprising, however - as the NGO part of the U.N. Durban conference in 2001 was virulently racist against Israel while Amnesty Int, HRW, B'tselem,...did nothing at the time it was happening to condemn the hatred.

Does anyone here really think those who are still either enslaved - 27 million? wow!!! - or have little to no civil liberties in non-western countries (like women, gays, religious minorities) take comfort in AI or HRW's pathological obsession with Israel?

It must be terrible being these people who realize very well they cannot rely on Human Rights groups to tirelessy advocate and go to war for them as they do for Palestinians. If only Amnesty Int. or HRW focused the energy they spend on libeling Israel towards real humanitarian crises.

Disgusting.

Maybe this al-Dura case blowing up in their faces will change things for the better. One can only hope.

[Phx_Dem]

6. I disagree with his conclusions.

So called "White guilt" has little to do with it. AI goes where they get the most bang for the buck publicity wise.

They also have different standards for different countries:

"Responding to NGO Monitor's report, Amnon Vidan, director-general of Amnesty International's Israel branch, said the organization expected Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights than non-democratic regimes."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3402530,00.html

[shira]

8. different standards

"Responding to NGO Monitor's report, Amnon Vidan, director-general of Amnesty International's Israel branch, said the organization expected Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights than non-democratic regimes."

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

Too bad for the 2 million Sudanese dead and millions still enslaved. If only the non-democratic country of Sudan could be held to a higher standard maybe then the genocide and slavery in Sudan would become more of a priority for Amnesty International, the UN, and the media. Guess it bites to be Sudanese, huh?

Reminds me of Jimmy Carter weighing in on Sudan by neglecting to label the Darfur situation as genocide. Carter was quick to point out 'apartheid' in Israel but not genocide in Sudan. Update to Carter: The current president of Sudan is being charged with.......you guessed it.....genocide. Maybe the reason Carter claims 'apartheid' in Israel is not because it really is, but that such politically charged rhetoric is acceptable against democratic states with higher standards of respect for human rights. Same as 'collective punishment' and 'disproportionate force'. Wonder if those terms are used for any other conflicts other than what the USA and Israel are involved in.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Amnesty International has OFTEN made a fuss about the things that you mention.

They campaign strongly against human trafficking; violence against women worldwide (with a lot of focus on Iran); honour killings; etc.

Even if you feel that they are biased against Israel *when* they report on the I/P conflict, the I/P conflict is hardly their main focus. In fact, if they are focusing a lot on any one country at the moment, it's China, presumably because of the Olympics.


www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?d=80256DD400782B848025700000554E28

www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/good-news/europe-moves-protect-trafficked-people-20080...

www.amnesty.org.uk/svaw/

www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/iran/page.do?id=1011172&n1=3&n2=30&n3=922 - 61k

www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE130242006

www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17408

www.opendemocracy.net/article/5050/iran_stop_stoning_now

www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE14/001/2004

www.asiapacific.amnesty.org/actforwomen/svaw-060607-action-eng

www.asiapacific.amnesty.org/actforwomen/scandal-5-eng

www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE160012008&lang=e –

www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=683 -

[Sezu]

4. The problem is what gets all the press? This stuff or

Israeli actions? Well, like the UN, it tends to be the latter as the OP seens aware. For many, this lack of evenhandedness appears to be bias and so may as well be bias.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I have seen far more press reports on Amnesty's campaigns agains violence against women than on I/P

Perhaps things are different in the British and American press; though the stereotype is that such a difference would be in the other direction.

I do consider the UN seriously biased against Israel; but Amnesty International is another matter IMO.

[shira]

7. If Amnesty International is not biased then why....

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international

Do you realize how much hyperbole, exaggerations, and false reports are issued by Amnesty International with respect to Israel? Their reporting on al-Dura alone is enough evidence of their political bias. How could they be duped repeatedly and do such a bad job screwing up al-Dura? Easy. They wanted it to be true and weren't interested enough in gathering factual information before lambasting Israel.

Can you think of any other countries besides Israel that Amnesty consistently and persistently reports falsely on? If they were as clumsy with other countries as they were in Israel with al-Dura, they could rightfully be labeled incompetent. The problem is they are only consistently wrong and rhetorically hyperbolic towards Israel. For example, what other country does Amnesty absurdly accuse of both collective punishment and disproportionate force in their rhetorically bastardized condemnations which have nothing to do with actual international law? There exists no international law that would define Israel's actions as collective punishment or disproportionate force, but Amnesty uses this politically charged rhetoric repeatedly.



on edit:
Do you think the media and UN are biased against Israel? The mainstream press has yet to give the French court case's findings on the al-Dura hoax the publicity it deserves. The UN spends a significantly disproportionate amount of its time on Israel.

Are you aware of Amnesty's silence during the NGO portion of the UN's Durban conference in 2001 when Jewish groups were being silenced and antisemitic propaganda and cartoons were being passed around to the NGO's in attendance?

[Phx_Dem]

18. But they do appear biased in their ME reporting

Review of Amnesty International in 2007: Attacking Democracy instead of Oppression in Middle East

Conclusion:

The results of this study indicate that factors other than the gravity and frequency of human rights violations drive Amnesty's reporting priorities in the Middle East. In 2007 Amnesty singled out Israel for more condemnation than Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, and Algeria. Israel and Iraq were equally the subject of the most detailed reports, and more items were published on Israel than on Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority combined. Combined with statements from Amnesty officials indicating that country access and potential for media attention determine priorities, such skewed reporting policies damage Amnesty's reputation as defender of universal human rights.


http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/review_of_amnesty_international_in_attacking_democracy_instead_of_oppression_in_middle_east

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yr using an incredibly biased source that's known for its dishonesty to claim AI is biased?

Seriously, why can't people be honest and admit that they can't stand seeing Israel criticised by human rights organisations?

[shira]

29. how is NGO-monitor biased? provide evidence please.

Israel gets attacked more by AI than Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PA combined and you don't think AI is biased? Do you want to pretend the human rights infractions within the Pal. territories occur less frequently than whatever Israel dishes out?

Show me once in all of AI's condemnations of Israel - and you can take your pick since AI is pathologically obsessed with Israel - show once where AI explains Israel's actions in the context of Palestinians or Hezbollah using human shields - which is illegal by the Geneva accords. If AI never mentions this, why not? Does it weaken their case? In the event I'm not clear enough, I'm not interested in AI's condemnation of Hamas, Hezbollah, or the PA - but only Israel. Where, when AI attacks Israel, do they explain civilian casualties being the primary result of human shields? Because let's face it, there's simply no individual or organization which can be rightfully condemned by ignoring the fact human shields are purposely being used.

Prove to us NGO-monitor is more biased or hateful than AI. If you cannot, why make the assertion?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Well, using yr own standards for bias, NGO Monitor is incredibly biased...

You say: 'Israel gets attacked more by AI than Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PA combined and you don't think AI is biased?' and then you ask how is NGO-Monitor biased? It attacks any ngo that dares to utter criticism of Israel. It doesn't attack ngo's for criticising the Palestinians. And unlike AI, which is a global ngo, it's obsessed exclusively with Israel....

The problem with folk who are indoctrinated by the propaganda of the likes of ngo-monitor is that they want ALL criticism of Israel to stop, as according to True Beleivers there's a justification for everything done to Palestinian civilians. They don't bother actually reading anything AI say, because AI has consistantly spoken out against (sorry, in yr lingo the word is *attacked*) Palestinian militants using civilians as human shields. Just like they've been consistantly opposed to the IDF having used Palestinian civilians as human shields. That latter one would be a no-no in the eyes of True Believers, and would make AI ever so incredibly biased! ;)

Who's 'us'? Are you speaking on behalf of some single-minded mass, or is it just a bit of a Queen Victoria thing? It's always best to just speak for yrself here...

Anyway, I'm sure you'll dismiss anything pointing out the dishonesty and bias of ngo-monitor out of hand as being dishonest, biased, Israel-bashers blah blah blah, but for those who are interested in objectivity and not just singing with the choir, here's some info about ngo-monitor

Monitoring The Monitor
By Leonard Fein
Fri. May 20, 2005

One of the more active sideshows of our time is the tangle of new organizations devoted to uncovering and broadcasting what they see as “the truth.” Now that the Internet has radically simplified the work and lowered the cost of getting such messages out, it seems a wonder that there’s room in cyberspace for all the information that each day brings.

But there’s the rub: It’s not the quantity that’s the problem, it’s the nature of what passes for “information.” How are we to distinguish between information and noise? How can we tell when an organization’s ideological agenda colors its presentation?

What brings this to mind just now is an unfolding assault on Human Rights Watch, which is widely regarded and respected, along with Amnesty International USA, as the premier human rights agency in the United States. Its reports are carefully researched and, often to the embarrassment of governments, widely reported.

So, for example, its recent 53-page report on the “rendition” of some 60 alleged Islamist terrorists, sent to Egypt where (contrary to our president’s bland assessment) even our State Department indicates they are virtually certain to be tortured. Other Human Rights Watch reports in recent weeks have focused on Darfur; on America’s treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and on the state of human rights in Peru, in Nepal, in Iraq and in Vietnam.

These reports, frequently of conditions that would otherwise pass unnoticed, are produced by a staff of nearly 200 people in 15 offices around the world with an annual budget just short of $22 million.

It comes as no surprise that Human Rights Watch also speaks out on Israel, often (though not always) critically. Enter NGO Monitor, an organization that believes that the best way to defend Israel is to condemn anyone who criticizes it.

NGO Monitor operates out of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute for Contemporary Affairs. Its editor is Gerald Steinberg, a professor at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and its stated purpose is “to end the practice used by certain self-declared ‘humanitarian NGOs’ of exploiting the label ‘universal human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas.”

It is in that context that it has paid special attention to Human Rights Watch, offering on its Web site more reports on Human Rights Watch than on any other of the 75 NGOs it seeks to “out.” It holds that Human Rights Watch exploits “the rhetoric of universal human rights to promote narrow political and ideological preferences,” thereby falling squarely within the explicit scope of NGO Monitor’s interest.

I cannot here review all of what NGO Monitor claims as evidence for its harsh view that Human Rights Watch acts “in concert with international demonization of Israel.” But here are two items that provide an indication of the “narrow political and ideological preferences” of NGO Monitor itself:

On April 18, NGO Monitor issued a “draft report on Human Rights Watch” which claims that an “objective quantitative analysis” shows that Human Rights Watch places an “extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel.” I have reviewed the draft document and checked its central claim against the actual documents Human Rights Watch has produced regarding Israel since the year 2000. The discrepancy between NGO Monitor’s claims and Human Rights Watch’s record is massive.

Human Rights Watch has in fact devoted more attention to each of five other nations in the region — Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran — than to Israel. I called this to Steinberg’s attention on May 3, and he responded that NGO Monitor would “examine and respond” to the discrepancies. Since then, I have received 27 emails from Steinberg; not one has in any way responded to this matter. Yet the draft report remains online, unamended.

On June 30, Israel’s Supreme Court issued a much-publicized ruling on the “separation fence.” The heart of the ruling was that “the route which the military commander established for the security fence… injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way, while violating their rights under humanitarian international law” and that the fence must therefore be relocated.

But if you were to read the NGO Monitor’s summary of the ruling, you would never know this. You would, instead, read all the court’s reasons for declaring that Israel has the right to build a fence to protect its citizens — and none of the language that explains the court’s view that the location of the fence is an unacceptable “infringement on the local inhabitants’ rights and interests.”

Now NGO Monitor is on a public campaign to establish a mechanism, as Steinberg puts it, “to watch the watchers” — that is, to provide external controls over the actions of NGOs in general and of Human Rights Watch in particular. It also urges that NGO hiring and other practices be “transparent.”

Here, again, my repeated requests for an explanation of just how hiring practices might be rendered transparent, and why board oversight and donor response are inadequate as safeguards, have gone unanswered.

Human Rights Watch is not beyond criticism; no NGO is. And all NGOs — NGO Monitor not less than Human Rights Watch — have an agenda. It is entirely appropriate for outsiders to enquire, to judge whether an NGO’s claimed agenda is honestly stated and honestly pursued.

NGO Monitor is not exempt from the kind of scrutiny it proposes for Human Rights Watch and others; its claim that Human Rights Watch “promotes narrow political and ideological preferences” while its own hands are clean and its motives pure is vacuous.

Let it, as it wishes, “watch the watcher” — but let it, in turn, be watched.

http://www.forward.com/articles/monitoring-the-monitor/

[shira]

51. that's it? That's all the dirt you have on ngo-monitor?

Even if this report is accurate, these are petty accusations when compared with the way AI and HRW gladly particpated in al-Dura, Qana, Gaza Beach, Jenin, Gaza blackout hoax, etc. Even if I agree ngo-monitor is biased, how are their reports more politically slanted than those from AI or HRW with respect to their coverage on Israel?

Holy shit.......if ngo-monitor were as reckless in reporting hysterical propaganda as HRW and AI, I would be embarassed to support them. How can you credibly say ngo-monitor is more biased than your treasured AI or HRW? Are you serious?

[Violet_Crumble]

53. You asked for proof they lied, You got it...

What you do with it is up to you. It's not like I expect you to agree on anything that might threaten yr very set-in-stone views. And I didn't expect you to do anything else but start screaming about how ngo monitor isn't biased (that's not saying much since you think yr not biased) and trotting out more ignorant nonsense about AI and HRW.

[shira]

63. where did they lie?

1. Steinberg of ngo-monitor is just waiting for HRW to respond before changing anything on his site. How did he and ngo-monitor lie?

2. Is the al-Dura hoax just nonsense to you? How about Qana and Gaza beach? I understand you supporting AI and HRW if you believe these were not hoaxes at all. Do tell please.

[bemildred]

9. Apparently HRW is a reliable source on some occasions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x219577

[shira]

10. sadly....

...what's the point of Amnesty or HRW being only 'sometimes' reliable? With their credibility shot, they're useless.

But maybe they can do the same thing as the now defunct UN human rights commission. They changed their name to the Human rights council, claimed that things are different, but they operate in the same biased way as they did previously. HRW and Amnesty can claim to do the same thing and probably get away with it - and plenty of dupes will buy it.

sigh.

[bemildred]

11. Being right 60% of the time will serve you pretty well in Las Vegas.

Or a lot of professional occupations. In politics you can be wrong all the time and still do quite well.

But seriously, the assertion that you have to be correct 100% of the time to be useful is fatuous, it borders on cretinism.

[shira]

12. being complicit in a hoax....

....kinda destroys any credibility HRW and Amnesty claim to have. You can claim HRW and Amnesty were duped but how many times must this happen (Gaza beach, Qana, Gaza blackout hoax, Jenin) before people stop listening to you crying wolf against Israel? The media is no better, as they'll try keeping the al-Dura hoax under wraps as long as they can.

How can you not be angry at these organizations for constantly assisting those who invent Israeli crimes - and do nothing against those guilty of perpetrating such hoaxes?

You may as well get your news from the National Enquirer. I could also find some stuff in the fiction section at Barnes and Noble that could interest you. At least the fiction books I'd recommend wouldn't be hateful and slanderous screeds like the sources you seemingly 'trust'.

[bemildred]

13. There are no sources I trust.

I trust - :-) - that you are not suggesting that I should only read "trusted sources"? You seem to be re-asserting the "if they are not perfect, then they are useless" argument.

[shira]

14. I'm suggesting....

...considering all sources and being VERY skeptical of those you know to report falsely. I suggest believing in facts, and not emotionally based indoctrination. You should spend at least 2-3 hours daily at PMW and MEMRI to learn more about anti-Israel forces. Those are factual sources that translate arab media. They're eye-openers.

In fact - I propose a little test. On what one issue that's debatable do we disagree? Assume I'm the pro-Israel side and you're not. What one issue can we debate using facts? 6-day war? illegal occupation? settlements cause of I/P conflict? Israel being the bully agressor to Palestinian victims? Your choice. This will be an exercise in using sources and common sense properly. Are you game?

[bemildred]

15. Well, I think they all report falsely, so I'm very skeptical about all of them.

I do have some problems with the notion of "facts" though. My observation has been that you cannot in most cases get people to agree about the "facts"; The al Dura case is a perfect example of that, so - unless there are present some fairly limited sorts of direct evidence - I consider there is little to separate the vast body of what people call "facts" from more-or-less well-supported opinions that are trying to get above themselves.

[azurnoir]

19. Dear Ms Shira

There is an old saying in the world of marionette artists "your strings are showing", perhaps you should keep that in mind

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Okay, thanks for the hilarious post...

How can you not be angry at these organizations for constantly assisting those who invent Israeli crimes - and do nothing against those guilty of perpetrating such hoaxes?

Gosh, maybe, just maybe, it's because as a member of AI I support and trust their ability to highlight human rights violations, NO MATTER WHO'S COMMITTING THEM, and I tend to trust them far more than folk on the internet who label just about any human rights violation against a Palestinian as a hoax. AI's only agenda is that which the organisation exists for, and that's to publicise human rights violations. They aren't zealoted pro-Israeli groups like all the ones you rely on, whose sole reason for existing is to try to make out that Israel NEVER EVER EVER has done anything they should be criticised for...


You may as well get your news from the National Enquirer. I could also find some stuff in the fiction section at Barnes and Noble that could interest you. At least the fiction books I'd recommend wouldn't be hateful and slanderous screeds like the sources you seemingly 'trust'.

I dunno. That's really funny after seeing you post a link to Arutz Sheva and merely refer to it as right-wing rather than the racist swill it is...

[shira]

24. since you're a member of AI........

....riddle me this one please:

"Responding to NGO Monitor's report, Amnon Vidan, director-general of Amnesty International's Israel branch, said the organization expected Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights than non-democratic regimes."

Tell me please, how is AI's focus on the oppressor (Israel, etc..) helping the actual oppressed (try Sudanese for example) in non-democratic regimes where there is not this 'higher standard'? Is this not racist at the core? Should we expect less from the Sudanese gov't and therefore focus moreso on Israel - despite Israel being one of the most self-critical govts in the world, as opposed to Sudan who needs outside criticism?

More issues:

1. At Durban's NGO racism conference sponsored by the UN in 2001, racist tracts and cartoons were dispersed to NGO representatives while Jewish advocacy groups were silenced. Did you know this? AI was in attendance and did and said nothing while this was going on. Only several days later did they write about it. How revolting.

2. Are you not angry at AI for its role in demonizing Israel over the fraudulent al-Dura hoax? How about the hoaxes at Qana or Gaza beach? How much slack should we extend to AI, or do they get free passes? And how many other countries does AI falsely accuse of faux human rights abuses other than Israel? Or is it just Israel?

3. Do you not have a problem with the fact that in their condemnations of Israeli military responses to Palestinian rocket or kassam attacks, AI rarely if ever mentions that Hamas, Fatah, or Hizbollah forces are primarily at fault for carrying out their attacks against Israel from densely populated (sometimes schoolyard) populations? Why do we hardly read of this in condemnations against Israel? Palestinians bear enormous responsibility for their own civilian casualties while showing remarkable indifference to their own dead. And yet AI has more reports against Israel than Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah combined. Even if AI's intent is good, in effect they are only emboldening hardline arab leadership that counts on AI to be their ally against the zionist enemy. Palestinian leadership thrives on making ducks and drakes of their civilians who swell the body counts they parade to the press and groups like AI. This keeps the conflict going and only makes life worse for Palestinians. Let's face it - we all know this - it's no secret.

Seriously now - the way AI reports with respect to Israel and Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, etc... it seems AI is far from an objective independent source. They claim to be independent and unbiased, but in reality, they've taken sides and this is deplorable.

To prove my point, can you imagine AI taking a role in a fraud perpetrated by Israeli leadership (al-Dura, Qana, or Gaza beach in reverse), falsely maligning Palestinian leadership over such a hoax, repeating this dastardly activity - not railing against Israeli leadership for concocting such evil hoaxes and duping AI - and then not even apologizing for the role AI plays (knowingly or not) in such nefarious and hateful slanders? If AI did what they do to Palestinians (not Israel), they'd be rightfully out of business.



*Lastly, you question my sources - whether PMW, MEMRI, whatever. I ask you, is your opinion of such sources based on faith or evidence? If evidence - please provide some against my sources. If you have no evidence against MEMRI, PMW, NGO-watch, HonestReporting, CAMERA, etc... then your opinions are faith-based and emotional - and you are most likely impervious to counter evidence, making you highly amenable to indoctrination. If all I read were CounterPunch and other sources like it, I'd be brainwashing myself with hysterical propaganda, don't you agree?

In fact, is there any ideal evidence that would be satisfactory enough to invalidate your beliefs with regard to the I/P conflict - and if so - what is it? If no amount of ideal evidence can invalidate your views, what makes you any different than any mindless fundamentalist?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Read my comments on it from the archive...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=175318&mesg_id=175434


As to yr other 'issues' -

1. What's disgusting about speaking out against what went on at the NGO conference? For fuck's sake, it really gets pathetic when people with an irrational hatred of AI get so incredibly petty that they put some arbitrary time limit on when criticism should be given. AI is a large organisation. I work in a large organisation that also puts out statements, and even for things with a real degree of urgency (which I don't believe Durban was), things tend to move slowly before the statement is issued....

2. Why should I be angry at AI based on what some internet twits pull out of their arses? Sorry, but if given a choice between being angry at AI coz they don't listen to some twits who insist that every human rights violation against an Arab is a hoax, and being angry at someone who makes hateful claims that the majority of Palestinians support genocide, I'll go with trying to work up some anger for the latter...

3. You really need to visit the AI site and actually read what they say, rather than rely on what others with the same agenda as you say about them. Here's the link, but hold onto yr hat, coz you'll more than likely gasp at the 'pathological obsession' and 'attacks' on China!

http://www.amnesty.org

Amnesty is consistant in its criticism of Palestinian groups for putting civilians in harms way. But Amnesty also criticises Israel for very similar things. So what you want to happen is that all criticism should be aimed at Palestinian groups and none at the IDF. Nothing like picking a side and sticking to it no matter what. Luckily AI doesn't work that way...

Lastly, you question my sources - whether PMW, MEMRI, whatever. I ask you, is your opinion of such sources based on faith or evidence?

Says the person who with less than 50 posts under their belt has done little more than slag off any source that doesn't disagree with the True Believer mindset of Good vs Evil with no shades of grey. Try to focus on what we're discussing here in this thread. I've explained to you why ngo-monitor is both biased and dishonest. It only takes a little bit of common-sense and objectiviy to be able to see the bias, but for those who think bias and propaganda is limited to one side only, I doubt anything will break into that warm and fuzzy self-righteous 'I'm Right!!!! I Have The Truth!!!!' mindset...


In fact, is there any ideal evidence that would be satisfactory enough to invalidate your beliefs with regard to the I/P conflict - and if so - what is it? If no amount of ideal evidence can invalidate your views, what makes you any different than any mindless fundamentalist?

As yr not familiar with my views on the I/P conflict, and after seeing the way you totally ignored what another poster said in favour of attributing things to them they didn't say, I'm sure lack of familiarity will limit you in coming up with what my views supposedly are. Go for yr life. I've grown used to a minority of posters here thinking they know better than me what I think about things...

I certainly hope yr not even remotely hoping to change any views I hold on the conflict. I've been here a long time and I have changed my opinion on some things after reading convincing arguments, but they're from people I generally respect and who don't indulge in insinuating that Arabs are liars or saying the majority of Palestinians support genocide. Those fundy types remind me of the antichoice folk who were always running round trying to 'convert' people...

[shira]

50. reply

1. What's disgusting about speaking out against what went on at the NGO conference? For fuck's sake, it really gets pathetic when people with an irrational hatred of AI get so incredibly petty that they put some arbitrary time limit on when criticism should be given. AI is a large organisation. I work in a large organisation that also puts out statements, and even for things with a real degree of urgency (which I don't believe Durban was), things tend to move slowly before the statement is issued....

AI did and said nothing when Israel advocacy groups were being shut out and hateful literature was being passed around. They only objected and condemned things after Israel advocacy groups reported about it. I give you more credit than that. If you were there, I doubt you'd have let all that happen without at least voicing your objections. Your AI comrades (and HRW too) just let this happen.


2. Why should I be angry at AI based on what some internet twits pull out of their arses? Sorry, but if given a choice between being angry at AI coz they don't listen to some twits who insist that every human rights violation against an Arab is a hoax, and being angry at someone who makes hateful claims that the majority of Palestinians support genocide, I'll go with trying to work up some anger for the latter...

Not every rights violation. Just al-Dura for now. Let's add Gaza Beach and Qana too. If any Israeli advocacy groups were this reckless and vicious and I supported them, I'd have plenty of cause for concern and voice my objections. What's your excuse?


Amnesty is consistant in its criticism of Palestinian groups for putting civilians in harms way. But Amnesty also criticises Israel for very similar things. So what you want to happen is that all criticism should be aimed at Palestinian groups and none at the IDF. Nothing like picking a side and sticking to it no matter what. Luckily AI doesn't work that way...

Project much?

I don't claim all criticism of Israel is bad....only that some criticism is clearly unwarranted, harmful, and politically motivated. That's all.


Lastly, you question my sources - whether PMW, MEMRI, whatever. I ask you, is your opinion of such sources based on faith or evidence?

Says the person who with less than 50 posts under their belt has done little more than slag off any source that doesn't disagree with the True Believer mindset of Good vs Evil with no shades of grey. Try to focus on what we're discussing here in this thread. I've explained to you why ngo-monitor is both biased and dishonest. It only takes a little bit of common-sense and objectiviy to be able to see the bias, but for those who think bias and propaganda is limited to one side only, I doubt anything will break into that warm and fuzzy self-righteous 'I'm Right!!!! I Have The Truth!!!!' mindset...

How is ngo-monitor MORE biased than AI or HRW? Has ngo-monitor ever been caught up in anything as disgraceful and destructive as the al-dura allegations, or Qana, or Gaza beach? Even if you want me to agree ngo-monitor is biased, they are in no way involved in anything as egregiously biased and factually inaccurate as what HRW and AI report with respect to Israel. If you disagree, please explain. If not, concede the point.



As yr not familiar with my views on the I/P conflict, and after seeing the way you totally ignored what another poster said in favour of attributing things to them they didn't say, I'm sure lack of familiarity will limit you in coming up with what my views supposedly are. Go for yr life. I've grown used to a minority of posters here thinking they know better than me what I think about things...

You attribute views to me that I do not hold and then accuse me of same?

I certainly hope yr not even remotely hoping to change any views I hold on the conflict. I've been here a long time and I have changed my opinion on some things after reading convincing arguments, but they're from people I generally respect and who don't indulge in insinuating that Arabs are liars or saying the majority of Palestinians support genocide. Those fundy types remind me of the antichoice folk who were always running round trying to 'convert' people...


Let's test your opinions based on 'convincing arguments'.

1. A poll recently showed about 84% of Palestinians approved of the March 2008 Yeshiva massacre. Explain to me please how that is not a majority supporting genocide.

2. The Gaza beach hoax, Jenin, Qana, al-Dura, etc... are not lies?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. What criticism of Israel do you think is fine?

You've made that claim, but have yet to utter a single word of criticsm of Israel. Instead in what is a relatively short history here, you've shown a great deal of hostility towards every organisation that does criticise Israel. So I'd like to find out from you what things Israel has done that yr critical of...

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Kick for shira. I'd like to see an answer to this n/t

[shira]

52. you first please.

What has Hamas and Fatah leadership done that you are critical of?

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I'm assuming you can read. Go and read old threads...

I figured you wouldn't be able to answer the question I asked.

[shira]

59. after you, Violet

Why don't you give me a quick list of things you are critical of with respect to the Palestinian govt and I will gladly give you my list against Israel.

Fair enough?

[shira]

44. no, thank you for your hilarious post

Gosh, maybe, just maybe, it's because as a member of AI I support and trust their ability to highlight human rights violations, NO MATTER WHO'S COMMITTING THEM, and I tend to trust them far more than folk on the internet who label just about any human rights violation against a Palestinian as a hoax.

Al-Dura is a hoax. So is Jenin, Gaza Beach, Qana, the Gaza blackout, etc. But you believe AI and HRW are somehow more honest, credible and not as biased as NGO-monitor? Really now, who does AI or HRW interview and label as "eyewitnesses"? Elvis? Donald Duck?



AI's only agenda is that which the organisation exists for, and that's to publicise human rights violations. They aren't zealoted pro-Israeli groups like all the ones you rely on, whose sole reason for existing is to try to make out that Israel NEVER EVER EVER has done anything they should be criticised for...

Wrong. Criticism of Israel is fine. Politically biased and hurtful propaganda against Israel is not fine. No one likes or admits to crimes they are not responsible for.

It very much seems you are the one against any criticism of your sacred sources like AI and HRW despite their participating in wholesale propaganda like al-Dura, Jenin, Qana, etc. Tell me - how is it that AI and HRW's "eyewitnesses" commonly turn out to be so unreliable? When it comes to Israel, are AI and HRW incompetent or an active part of the propaganda campaign? It must be one or the other. What other explanation is there for hoax after hoax that AI and HRW reports on?


I dunno. That's really funny after seeing you post a link to Arutz Sheva and merely refer to it as right-wing rather than the racist swill it is...

Arutz Sheva may be a lot of silly things - but you can find anything in their reporting that even remotely approaches the swill that AI and HRW report with respect to al-Dura, Jenin, etc.? Would it be racist swill for AI and HRW to particate in hoaxes that demonize the Palestinians? Of course it would.

I'll cut AI a little slack with Jenin. At least they never reported on a massacre there. They did, however, report on "war crimes" committed. Tell me, did they interview the same "eyewitnesses" from Jenin who were claiming that hundreds of victims were buried by Israeli bulldozers? Whatever happened to those hundreds of victims? Seriously now, AI and HRW are about as reliable as the Tehran Times when it comes to reporting on Israel.

How you find AI and HRW respectable sources with regard to Israel is baffling. That they are MORE reliable than MEMRI, NGO-monitor, etc.. is even more laughable. Let me know when CAMERA or HonestReporting approaches anything near al-Dura, Jenin, and Qana allegations.

Still waiting for you on John Pilger by-the-way. Yet another bastion of honest journalism with respect to Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Instead of going back and replying to earlier posts again, how about replying to the most recent one

It's here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=219688&mesg_id=220143

But let me get this straight. You don't think Arutz Sheva is racist????????

On John Pilger. I didn't realise I was expected to say anything else. I got my point across in my post about him and Keith Windshuttle, though I guess the point sailed a mile above yr head...

Anyway, could you please have the courtesy to reply to the post of mine that was the most recent one instead of replying to an earlier post you'd already replied to?

[shira]

47. no reply to #44?

you have nothing to comment on about #44?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. You don't bother reading posts you reply to, do you?

Did you see that link in my post? Click on it, read, and respond if you want to. Or not.

[shira]

60. I replied....you did not.

I'm assuming you are in the process of thinking of good replies to my questions. I'm hoping you are not trying to avoid my questions. I have high hopes that we can continue with a real discussion. Power of positive thinking and such...

[Sezu]

16. Make sure you explain that to the next friend who needs

a good surgeon. They will surely enjoy the cretinism remark.

[bemildred]

17. Even surgeons are not correct 100% of the time.

And surgical patients die all the time. Only a cretin would try to find a surgeon who had never made any mistakes or never lost a patient.
:-)

[Sezu]

22. You seem to be an expert on cretins. Was this a gift?

Or did you take some course to gain such expertise?

[bemildred]

23. Long experience in this forum, mostly.

:-)

But it's not a mysterious subject, the dictionary is quite clear:

1. Informal: a very stupid person

If fits very well in the use I made of it, about the assertion that you have to be 100% "accurate" (never mind according to whom?) to be a useful news source, or useful in general. I also think it fits very well the notion that one ought to read only "approved" (again, by whom?) sources, a recipe for being a cretin if I ever heard one.

[Sezu]

25. So you are of the opinion that you or others were being

urged to read only sources that were "approved," or 100% right and that a non-stupid person would/should readily incorporate sources who are right as much as 60% of the time into their informed opinions?

[azurnoir]

26. A non-stupid person would

realize that nothing that incorporates humans is 100% right.

Oh and keep this in mind next time you seek medical attention-many US institutions that teach medicine whether it be MD's, nurses, or other consider an overall 60%-70% a passing score.

[Sezu]

27. These lessons in being non-stupid are so informative.

I do hope others will join in the 60% solution to non-stupidity. I am very interested in the list it will generate. So far, you and her. I await the remainder coming out of the closet.

[bemildred]

28. I am saying:

1.) There are no 100% reliable sources, so I read nothing but "unreliable" sources, and so for that matter do you. My sig line is the perfect expression of that attitude.

2.) It is the hallmark of intelligence to think about the world in more complex ways and to be able to incorporate and make use of "unreliable" information; to question simple, rigid categories and favor of observation and messy particularity. Faith-based intelligence, intelligence based in adherence to authority, intelligence based in stereotypes and emotional reactions, is no intelligence at all, but rather the abdication of ones intelligence in favor of other methods of deciding what one "thinks".

3.) I don't see how one can consider that one has an "informed opinion" without being willing to read anything that offers the means of informing that opinion, include "bad" writers, writers whom one dislikes, or writers who one disagrees with, writers who one considers to one degree or another "wrong" etc. If one reads only pre-digested commentary, one gets only a mediated view of the world. I adopt a critical attitude, and am not intimidated by threats of intellectual pollution should I let the wrong sort of idea enter my head.

---

In the particular case here, if one is interested in the I/P conflict, one ought to read what all parties to it have to say, in their own words, or as near as one can get to it, and not as interpreted by other interested parties. This would certainly include, HRW, AI, and a fairly long list of other more or less interested commentators, political spokespersons, propagandists, and outright loons (not necessarily separate categories, mind you).

And in the particular case here, I pointed out that HRW is sometimes apparently considered reliable, useful, that is good for bashing certain parties; with the intent to suggest (gently) that one ought not then disparage it elsewhere. It looks inconsistent.

[Sezu]

30. I don't know. Do you think one can come to 9/11 truth

by allowing loons like the no-planers into our minds? Or the hologramers or death ray crowd?

[bemildred]

31. How would you know unless you read what they have to say?

Can you come up with the "truth" by pre-excluding sources based on some self-designated authority's list of proscribed sources, or by excluding anybody who is not always "correct" according to some self-designated authority? I think not.

If you have any real intellectual power, you ought to be able to handle all that toxic verbiage anyway. The world is full of bullshit and intellectual crap, you have to be able to sort it out for yourself, or at least trying to sort it out for yourself, or you are not really an intellectual in the first place.

[Sezu]

32. I am a long way from being an intellectual.

As are you.

[bemildred]

33. Right back to the personal insults, eh? nt

[Sezu]

34. Oh, are you claiming to be an intellectual? I know I'm not

one and I don't find it insulting in the least especially knowing the great harm intellectuals have wrought worldwide supporting some of the worst genocidal maniacs that ever lived. Not all intellectuals of course but enough to distrust the fuckers.

[bemildred]

35. Indeed, sheeplike ignorance and credulity are much safer,

Why try to think for yourself when so many are willing to absolve you of that responsibility?

[Sezu]

36. Is that an insult? Or a psychic moment? How much do

you charge per minute? Perhaps I can be re-educated. Oh and can I be a sparrow or something like that instead of a sheep? It seems like that's the only part I ever got for Christmas concerts....sheep sheep sheep....I still itch just thinking about it.

[bemildred]

39. That would be an opinion, up to you so to speak.

I can say that if I intended to insult you there, you would not be in doubt. As for the other things: I charge nothing as you can see, perhaps you could re-educate yourself, and I think that a lemming would do perfectly well as a substitute.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. But you need to read this thread to see how wrong yr thinking is...

I don't see how one can consider that one has an "informed opinion" without being willing to read anything that offers the means of informing that opinion, include "bad" writers, writers whom one dislikes, or writers who one disagrees with, writers who one considers to one degree or another "wrong" etc. If one reads only pre-digested commentary, one gets only a mediated view of the world.

How it works is that one finds a website that one deems to be the Truth in a sea of biased lies and hoaxes. Once found, there's no need to read anything else, as that just hurts one's brain too much what with all those lies and hoaxes one must endure. Instead, one must urge others to spend at least several hours a day studiously perusing The Site Of Truth where there is an answer for everything, and that answer is always Lie! or Hoax! This is a very complex process that only those with far-reaching minds can cope with and definately not something for mere mortals like you and myself.

[bemildred]

41. Well, see, that way you don't have any contradictory "facts" to deal with.

It's much less stressful, and you get the illusion of knowing what's going on without having to do much work.

[azurnoir]

42. Sometimes the concept of the

glass being simultaneously "half empty and half full" can be difficult for some to grasp.

[shira]

54. how ironic

Tell me which websites you frequent that have reported on hoaxes like al-Dura, Gaza beach, and Qana. There's no question these were hoaxes. Can you refer me to websites you believe to tell the truth and which reported on these hoaxes? I'm willing to be your favorite websites have yet to report on this hysterical propaganda.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. I hang out at that wonderful unbiased LGF site!

Why? Don't you?

The only hysterical propaganda I'm seeing is coming from you

[shira]

61. is al-Dura a hoax or not? How about Gaza beach, Qana?

Maybe you think these are not hoaxes. If so, do tell. And if not, it's no wonder your web sources have not exposed these hoaxes. So what is it Violet? Hoaxes or not?

[azurnoir]

43. If HRW is so culpable

in spreading propaganda in the mind(s) of yourself and your trusted sources then this report must also be refuted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x220126

[shira]

56. I never said HRW doesn't ever do their job

but HRW's own leadership admits that they expect more from Israeli leadership than Palestinian and this is what motivates their reporting more against Israel than against Palestinian leadership. They have lower expectations of Palestinians than Israelis. Quite racist, don't you think?

[azurnoir]

58. ah so whren HRW is condemning

Palestinians they're "doing their job", well what a surprise.....

And standards so you advocate holding a country such as say East Timor to the same standards as the US? Could prove difficult, well for East Timor that is.

[shira]

62. is it too much to ask.....

...that HRW does their job by equally condemning human rights violators of all countries? If anything, it seems they should condemn western countries LESS than those who do not share our progressive values (due to the self-criticism already existant in such states). Do you disagree? Why?

I'm assuming you don't think it's racist to expect less of some people than others?