Billo_Really said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Abbas recently get Hamas to agree (in principle) to Israel's right to exist?
Billo_Really said:Then what the hell was Israel doing shooting a missle into a van killing 11 Palestinians (most were children) back on June 14?
blastula said:They puposely left out the part about the six day war where Israel was defending themselves from the Arab nations and the Arabs lost the war. The terrirories in question were disputed territories and not occupied lands as they claimed. And regarding Israel's invasion of Lebanon they also conveniently left out the reasons Israel invaded Lebanon. I would not trust a site that tell only one sided story, would you?
clone said:actually thats nowhere near how the 6 day war went down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Israel started that war.
.
I'm certainly no fan of Hamas, but I still haven't seen any links from you that show the dates of these missle launches.Originally posted by TOT:
Do we have to cover this again, Hamas was launching rockets into Israel ever since the pullout the kidnapping of the soldiers was just the last straw. Oh and who else was in that van or who was the actual target.
All you have to do is Google the topic or visit the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site. From February to June of 2006, over 1500 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel. Sderot was the recipient of over 100 of these rockets. Now that the IDF occupies the Hamas launch sites in northern Gaza, no more rockets attacks have occured.Billo_Really said:I'm certainly no fan of Hamas, but I still haven't seen any links from you that show the dates of these missle launches.
You are mistaken. Three members of Islamic Jihad were transporting Katyusha rockets in the yellow Volkswagon van.Billo_Really said:And in regards to the van, there wasn't anyone (who you were implying) there to justify that attack.
Just as in the bogus claims Hezbollah was launching missles from behind innocent civilians, what proof can you post, that will show Israeli claims of "...militants in that van", were true?Originally posted by Shayah
You are mistaken. Three members of Islamic Jihad were transporting Katyusha rockets in the yellow Volkswagon van.
From your own source:
The account was quickly disputed by officials from Human Rights Watch, who cited contrary evidence from an investigation of their own.
And why is that? Although I completely condemn Hamas for each and everyone of those 1500 rockets, I'm not about to excuse Israel for any wrongdoings of their own.Originally posted by Shayah
All you have to do is Google the topic or visit the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site. From February to June of 2006, over 1500 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel. Sderot was the recipient of over 100 of these rockets. Now that the IDF occupies the Hamas launch sites in northern Gaza, no more rockets attacks have occured.
Yes, it was, wasn't it? Are you jealous?Originally posted by Voidwar:
Nicely Done Shayah
I'm sorry, your going to have to back that up by posting some proof. You've shown me I can't take your word on anything. Unless, of coarse, that word happens to be "dis-information"Originally posted by Voidwar:
btw the Humans Rights Watch types . . .
were diputing a claim about an earlier attack on Friday, while the van incident happened on Tuesday.
clone said:i am not trolling off topic - he asked for a history of the middle east since World War 1, and i gave it to him.
Billo_Really said:I'm sorry, your going to have to back that up by posting some proof.
Prove I took it in error!Originally posted by Voidwar:
Read the NYT article, the proof is within.
You have mistaken "what" the HRA was disputing.
Once you realize your take on the article was in error, , ,
please ad hominem yourself for me.
Billo_Really said:Originally posted by Shayah
You are mistaken. Three members of Islamic Jihad were transporting Katyusha rockets in the yellow Volkswagon van.
Just as in the bogus claims Hezbollah was launching missles from behind innocent civilians, what proof can you post, that will show Israeli claims of "...militants in that van", were true?
In the meantime, from that same link you posted...
From your source: (Shayah's Article)
The account was quickly disputed by officials from Human Rights Watch, who cited contrary evidence from an investigation of their own.
GAZA, June 13 — Eight Palestinian civilians were killed and more than 40 wounded Tuesday by an Israeli missile strike on Islamic militants riding in a van that Israeli officials said was carrying rockets to launch at Israel. Two men in the van were also killed, including a man the Israelis consider an important rocket maker.
The officials said the strike had prevented more of what has been a rising number of Palestinian missile attacks launched from Gaza. But the civilian casualties further inflamed Palestinian rage over eight deaths last week on a beach from what residents said was an errant Israeli shell. Seven of the dead were from one family.
In a news conference in Tel Aviv, Israel's defense minister, Amir Peretz, announced Tuesday that an investigation into the deaths on Friday showed that Israel was not to blame.
"We have enough findings to back up the suspicion that the intention to describe this as an Israeli event is simply not correct," he said, citing films, data on where and when the shells landed, and a piece of shrapnel taken from a victim. "The accumulating evidence proves that this incident was not due to Israeli forces."
The account was quickly disputed by officials from Human Rights Watch, who cited contrary evidence from an investigation of their own.
In the attack on Tuesday, one missile struck a van and killed two members of Islamic Jihad and apparently wounded a third.
I went back and re-read the article in the link and, your right, HRW was disputing the incident on the beach, not in the van. It [the article] also states there was a rocket-maker in that van. It also states that the rocket attacks by Hamas were done in response to Israels continued excursions and abductions in Gaza.Originally posted by Voidwar:
So, in your post, you refer to "Israeli claims of "...militants in that van",
and then follow with an article quote. . . "The account was quickly disputed by officials from Human Rights Watch", but in this article quote, the claim being disputed by HWA is not the van on tuesday, but the responsibility for friday.
Now tear yourself a new one.
Ok, let me try this again...Originally posted by Voidwar:
Oh, I've got to think you can ad hominem yourself better than that.
Billo_Really said:If you don't recognize the sovereign territory of another nation, what do you expect is going to happen? And if you can't conduct operations in such a way that limit civilian casualties, then don't complain about what happens.
Yes, to be fair, one could also say that too!Originally posted by RightatNYU
One could also make the argument that if you allow a terrorist organization to operate with impunity in your country, elect them to power, refuse to disarm them or ask for any foreign help to do so, and then that terrorist organization violates the soverign territory of another nation and kidnaps their soldiers, then don't complain about what happens.
Hey, your the one who demanded I ad hom myself! So I did. What are you getting so upset about? I capitulated to your wishes...Originally posted by Voidwar:
Even after being proven wrong, gently and politely, you still try to ad hominem me.
Congratulations, your credibility has reached zero.
Please deposit a more worthwhile human if you wish to continue.
Billo_Really said:Just as in the bogus claims Hezbollah was launching missles from behind innocent civilians, what proof can you post, that will show Israeli claims of "...militants in that van", were true?
In the meantime, from that same link you posted...
That's your opinion, and you have every right to it. Besides, that statement of mine was made in error.Originally posted by TOT:
Human Rights Watch is an anti-Israel pro-Palestinian front in the guise of a Human Rights advocacy group.
Billo_Really said:That's your opinion, and you have every right to it. Besides, that statement of mine was made in error.
Human Rights Watch has been criticized by various human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and media as having an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel bias. This includes the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the Anti-Defamation League, Honest Reporting, NGO Monitor, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Abraham Cooper, Anne Bayefsky, Gerald Steinberg, Isi Leibler, Shimon Peres[citation needed], and Ana Palacio.
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America ran an article on their website in 2005 titled “What is Human Rights Watch's Agenda?” In this article CAMERA stated that Human Rights Watch is “A self-appointed arbiter of human rights abuses around the world” and that, “This would be a noble and worthy mission if it were carried out objectively, without regard to political or ideological agenda. Regrettably, this is not the case.”[6] CAMERA has also stated, “AI and another "voice of international appeasement" — Human Rights Watch — have consistently directed their righteous ire at Israel, sparing the real human rights abusers.”[7]
In a 2006 communiqué Honest Reporting wrote, “Human Rights Watch, along with many other organizations which claim to focus solely on human rights without a political agenda, have hardly proven themselves to be an "unbiased" source.” Furthermore, the communiqué asserted, “HRW is not held accountable to anybody but its own staff” and, “The organization's bias against Israel is hardly new.”[8]
The Anti-Defamation League, in response to coverage of the Jenin Massacre, stated that Human Rights Watch was among the groups that, “Pre-judged Israel's behavior.” The Anti-Defamation League also wrote, “Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged Israel with violations of international law and war crimes. Neither discussed the international law violations involved in arming a refugee camp, or demanded the United Nations be held in any way accountable for its lack of oversight in the camp. While Human Rights Watch acknowledged in a May 3 report that there was no evidence of a massacre and that Palestinian gunmen had contributed to endangering Palestinian civilians, they continued to emphasize that there was prima facie evidence Israel committed war crimes.”[9]
The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council concluded an anti-Israel bias in the 2002 article titled, “Israel’s critics and their war with the truth.” Regarding an apparent double standard, this article questioned, “It is hard to explain why victims of slavery and slaughter are virtually ignored by American progressives. How can it be that there is no storm of indignation at Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, which, though they rushed to Jenin to investigate false reports of Jews massacring Arabs, care so much less about Arab-occupied Juba, South Sudan's black capital? How can it be that they have not raised the roof about Khartoum's black slaves?”[10] In fact, HRW had issued a report on slavery in Sudan earlier that year [11] and stated publicly on April 26, 2002, that “we have not found any evidence to suggest that hundreds of people were "massacred" by Israeli forces in Jenin” [12]
An NGO Monitor summary in 2006 commented, “While NGO Monitor's analysis shows a significant reduction in Human Rights Watch's disproportionate focus on Israel in 2005, compared with 2004, clear evidence of systematic political bias remains.” NGO Monitor added, “Many HRW publications continue to reflect what can be described as gratuitous political attacks against Israel, often based on unverified media reports, and reflecting a hostile political agenda. Similarly, as found in NGO Monitor's 2004 report, HRW's use of language to condemn Israel is highly politicized, especially when compared to reports on other countries in the Middle East, such as Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Libya, and continues to deny Israel the right to self-defense under international law.”[13] A quantitative study carried out by NGO Monitor asserted an anti-Israel bias as well.[14]
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/op-eds/041304-1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#Comparison_with_Amnesty_International
Anne Bayefsky concluded that there was an anti-Semitic agenda at Human Rights Watch based on her observations at the 2001 World Conference against Racism. Bayefsky wrote, “When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do, notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.” As a participant at the World Conference against Racism, Bayefsky also commented on how she was excluded from the meeting due to her participation with The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, “As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend.”[15]
Abraham Cooper, another participant at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, reiterated Anne Bayefsky’s conclusions when he wrote, “Contrary to the May 27 letter by the executive directors of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International U.S.A., Anne Bayefsky (Ending Bias in the Human Rights System, Op-Ed, May 22) was correct to criticize those two groups for their roles at the United Nations conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, last year.” Cooper added regarding the forum document, “The concerns of one group of victims -- the Jewish people -- were left off that document, with the silent acquiescence of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.” Abraham Cooper also recounted, “Like many other Jewish delegates at the conference, I was subjected to physical intimidation and threats.”[16]
Gerald Steinberg is one of the more vociferous critics of Human Rights Watch. In a 2006 National Review article titled “Human-Rights Schizophrenia” Steinberg wrote, “During the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession.” Steinberg asserted further, “The most infuriating instance of HRW’s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote “Razing Rafah,” a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling.” He concluded with, “So either it is I, along with other critics of HRW, who blindly oppose legitimate criticism of Israel (it might be dismissed as part of a neoconservative ideology), or it is Roth and HRW who apply different and unique criteria that single out Israel unfairly. The evidence shows that it is the latter.” [17]
Isi Leibler, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, stated that Human Rights Watch is among the groups that, “Have long track records of bias and employing double standards in relation to Israel.”[18]
In an address to the Anti-Defamation League, a former Foreign Minister of Spain, Ana Palacio, asserted that Human Rights Watch ignored anti-Semitism as an issue of importance over other human rights issues, such as gay or refugee rights. In this address she stated, “Disinterested NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism.”[19]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?