Political Crossfire Forums

[whynot]

Most Palestinian casualties are unjustifiable, Amnesty says
Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The rights group's report for 2004 says Israeli forces have killed some 700 Palestinians - including 150 children - mostly in unlawful circumstances.


The report lists "reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas... and excessive use of force".

It also condemns the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian militants and violence by Jewish settlers.

"Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes," Amnesty's report says.

"The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity," it adds.

An Israeli opposition MP has requested an urgent parliamentary debate on the report.

But an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman denied the charge of war crimes and said Amnesty's analysis appeared "one-sided".

The report says Palestinian armed groups killed 109 Israelis, including 59 civilians and eight children, in suicide bombings, shootings and mortar attacks.

'Impunity'

Amnesty's accusations against the Israeli army include unlawful killings, torture, extensive and wanton destruction of property, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel.


Amnesty International Report 2005 - Introduction (935K)
A-Z summary of key countries (1MB)
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download the reader here
Amnesty also says Israel has continued to use Palestinians as "human shields" during military operations, "forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives", despite an injunction by Israel's high court banning the practice.

The report accuses Israel of offering impunity to soldiers and settlers who commit crimes against Palestinians.

"In the overwhelming majority of the thousands of cases of unlawful killings and other grave human rights violations in the previous four years, no investigations were known to have been carried out," the report says.

"The Israeli army and police ... routinely increased restrictions on the local Palestinian population in response to attacks by Israeli settlers," it adds.

[MoscowMatt]

Yes looking closely at AI we can see....

Alleged Selection Bias
Some contend that there are a disproportionate number of AI reports on relatively more democratic and open countries. This is the major source of the charge of "selection bias", with critics pointing to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia.

Supporters claim that AI's intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world's human rights abuses. Instead, its aim is (a) to document what it can, in order to (b) produce pressure for improvement. These two factors skew the number of reports towards more open and democratic countries, because information is more easily obtainable, these countries have usually made strong claims and commitments to uphold human rights, and because their governments are more susceptible to public pressure. AI also focuses more heavily on states than other groups. This is due in part to the responsibility states have to the citizens they claim to represent.

A tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lesser violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.

[edit]
Examples
[edit]
Sudan
In 2004, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's NGO (non-governmental organization) Monitor released a study comparing Amnesty International's response to the twenty years of ethnic, religious and racial violence in Sudan in which (at that time) 2,000,000 people were killed and 4,000,000 people displaced, to their treatment of Israel.

In March of 2001, Anthony Lewis quoted then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, who when speaking about the Sudanese conflict in front of the United States Congress said “there is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the earth.”[12] Lewis further wrote that “the Sudanese Government in Khartoum bombs southern villages and blocks food relief flights to areas where it wants the population to starve.”[12] In June 2001, the UN's International Labor Organisation published a report concluding that in Sudan, as well as in three other African countries, “the wholesale abduction of individuals and communities is not uncommon.”[13] Further, in October of 2001, Norimitsu Onishi wrote in the New York Times about eyewitness accounts of murder, abductions, and property destruction against the southern Sudanese.[14]

When NGO monitor focused on the year 2001, they found that Amnesty International issued seven reports on Sudan, as opposed to 39 reports on Israel.[15] They specifically called attention to the difference in both scale and intensity:

Sourced from Wikepedia.

[whynot]

Quote: Sourced from Wikepedia.

we knew how wikepedia work

i can pay 1000 person to change all iunformation in wekepedia as i want

all the info in wiki is from amateur

here i have post a rapport from a confirmed organisation amnesty

[MoscowMatt]

whynot wrote: Quote: Sourced from Wikepedia.

we knew how wikepedia work

i can pay 1000 person to change all iunformation in wekepedia as i want

all the info in wiki is from amateur

here i have post a rapport from a confirmed organisation amnesty


Oh if I had the time to look around I could find those figures from any site.

Oh heres something

While ignoring the large-scale and systematic bombing and destruction of Sudanese villages, AI issued numerous condemnations of the razing of Palestinian houses, most of which were used as sniper nests or belonged to terrorists. Although failing to decry the slaughter of thousands of civilians by Sudanese government and allied troops, AI managed to criticize Israel's "assassinations" of active terrorist leaders.

— Asleep at the Wheel: Comparing the Performance of Human Rights NGO's on Sudan and Arab-Israeli Issues, NGO Monitor

My my, ain't that interesting!!



Personally as long as Palestine endorses a terrorist organisation to run their country and continues to commit terrorist acts I have no sympathy for their people. So your whining is failing on deaf ears here. Put simply

I DON'T CARE!!!

[MoscowMatt]

Oh and here's the link to the whole article

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n12/NGOsAndSudan.htm

[Plato & Socrates]

MoscowMatt wrote: Yes looking closely at AI we can see....

Alleged Selection Bias
Some contend that there are a disproportionate number of AI reports on relatively more democratic and open countries. This is the major source of the charge of "selection bias", with critics pointing to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia.

Supporters claim that AI's intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world's human rights abuses. Instead, its aim is (a) to document what it can, in order to (b) produce pressure for improvement. These two factors skew the number of reports towards more open and democratic countries, because information is more easily obtainable, these countries have usually made strong claims and commitments to uphold human rights, and because their governments are more susceptible to public pressure. AI also focuses more heavily on states than other groups. This is due in part to the responsibility states have to the citizens they claim to represent.

A tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lesser violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.

[edit]
Examples
[edit]
Sudan
In 2004, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's NGO (non-governmental organization) Monitor released a study comparing Amnesty International's response to the twenty years of ethnic, religious and racial violence in Sudan in which (at that time) 2,000,000 people were killed and 4,000,000 people displaced, to their treatment of Israel.

In March of 2001, Anthony Lewis quoted then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, who when speaking about the Sudanese conflict in front of the United States Congress said “there is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the earth."[12] Lewis further wrote that “the Sudanese Government in Khartoum bombs southern villages and blocks food relief flights to areas where it wants the population to starve."[12] In June 2001, the UN's International Labor Organisation published a report concluding that in Sudan, as well as in three other African countries, “the wholesale abduction of individuals and communities is not uncommon."[13] Further, in October of 2001, Norimitsu Onishi wrote in the New York Times about eyewitness accounts of murder, abductions, and property destruction against the southern Sudanese.[14]

When NGO monitor focused on the year 2001, they found that Amnesty International issued seven reports on Sudan, as opposed to 39 reports on Israel.[15] They specifically called attention to the difference in both scale and intensity:

Sourced from Wikepedia.

MoscowMatt, Amnesty is a well respected organisation. Just like Human rights watch. Many pro-Israelis on this forum have used these organisations findings, to back up there arguments. "And do you know what?" It is not a organisation you can discredit. Why cant you just except, that MAYBE? these groups have it right. Because Israel is the recipient of their criticism on this occasion, it does'nt mean they are bias or anti-semitic or anything other but telling it how it is. ie; Telling the truth.

[MoscowMatt]

Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: Yes looking closely at AI we can see....

Alleged Selection Bias
Some contend that there are a disproportionate number of AI reports on relatively more democratic and open countries. This is the major source of the charge of "selection bias", with critics pointing to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia.

Supporters claim that AI's intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world's human rights abuses. Instead, its aim is (a) to document what it can, in order to (b) produce pressure for improvement. These two factors skew the number of reports towards more open and democratic countries, because information is more easily obtainable, these countries have usually made strong claims and commitments to uphold human rights, and because their governments are more susceptible to public pressure. AI also focuses more heavily on states than other groups. This is due in part to the responsibility states have to the citizens they claim to represent.

A tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lesser violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.

[edit]
Examples
[edit]
Sudan
In 2004, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's NGO (non-governmental organization) Monitor released a study comparing Amnesty International's response to the twenty years of ethnic, religious and racial violence in Sudan in which (at that time) 2,000,000 people were killed and 4,000,000 people displaced, to their treatment of Israel.

In March of 2001, Anthony Lewis quoted then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, who when speaking about the Sudanese conflict in front of the United States Congress said “there is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the earth."[12] Lewis further wrote that “the Sudanese Government in Khartoum bombs southern villages and blocks food relief flights to areas where it wants the population to starve."[12] In June 2001, the UN's International Labor Organisation published a report concluding that in Sudan, as well as in three other African countries, “the wholesale abduction of individuals and communities is not uncommon."[13] Further, in October of 2001, Norimitsu Onishi wrote in the New York Times about eyewitness accounts of murder, abductions, and property destruction against the southern Sudanese.[14]

When NGO monitor focused on the year 2001, they found that Amnesty International issued seven reports on Sudan, as opposed to 39 reports on Israel.[15] They specifically called attention to the difference in both scale and intensity:

Sourced from Wikepedia.

MoscowMatt, Amnesty is a well respected organisation. Just like Human rights watch. Many pro-Israelis on this forum have used these organisations findings, to back up there arguments. "And do you know what?" It is not a organisation you can discredit. Why cant you just except, that MAYBE? these groups have it right. Because Israel is the recipient of their criticism on this occasion, it does'nt mean they are bias or anti-semitic or anything other but telling it how it is. ie; Telling the truth.

The point is not whether Israel has done anything wrong or not but how much criticism is leveled at Israel compared to what has been happening in area's like Sudan! Do you not feel there is a slight imbalance here?

Oh and just because they are a supposedly morally upstanding grouip does not mean that they are immune from corruption and outside influences. Whilst you may be able to trust them more than others it can still never be 100% and I don't just mean in relation to Israel.

[Redruin]

"The point is not whether Israel has done anything wrong or not but how much criticism is leveled at Israel compared to what has been happening in area's like Sudan! Do you not feel there is a slight imbalance here?

Oh and just because they are a supposedly morally upstanding grouip does not mean that they are immune from corruption and outside influences. Whilst you may be able to trust them more than others it can still never be 100% and I don't just mean in relation to Israel."


The point being discussed here is whether or not Israel has done something wrong, not Sudan, or wherever else another human disaster is occuring. Your position is so morally bankrupt that you can no longer argue logically on topic. "Oh and just because they are a supposedly morally upstanding grouip does not mean that they are immune from corruption and outside influences" - it's clear the Israeli government is immune from such in your mind.

[Plato & Socrates]

MoscowMatt wrote: The point is not whether Israel has done anything wrong or not but how much criticism is leveled at Israel compared to what has been happening in area's like Sudan! Do you not feel there is a slight imbalance here?

Oh and just because they are a supposedly morally upstanding grouip does not mean that they are immune from corruption and outside influences. Whilst you may be able to trust them more than others it can still never be 100% and I don't just mean in relation to Israel.

Fair point, but the Imbalance lies because places like Sudan does'nt get the constant exposure like the Middle east. For example when the Africans start to control more of the economic affairs and use that wealth and abundance of natural resources wisely and the western business interests begin to feel the pinch. Then Sudanese war-crimes and the rest which goes on around the continent will get more airtime. Our governments will get involved because of big business lobbying. Until then as long as it does'nt effect the west, we don't care. But it is a short sighted game,
because the Islamic radicalization of some sub-Sahara Africa countries, is going to bite us in our arse.
I see it with my own eyes on my traveling due to my job. This is going to be the next trouble spot, I guarantee.

[mr_happy]

I have no faith in Amnesty international. They routinely criticize Israel with token acknowledgements of Palestinian war crimes. There have been instances of ISraeli war crimes, and all of which have been proesucted by ISrael. Very few Israeli attacks can be even misconstrued as war crimes, while almost every palestinian attack is a war crime. Amnesty International has no grasp of military tactics or reality and therefore they have none of my support. Until i can see a remotely logical accusation from them that is not horribly biased and ignorant of military reality I will not give them my time of day.

Israeli war criminals let convicted murderers go to college and publish thesis papers on "the incompatibility of democracy and security in ISrael." Yet the poor palestinians will execute their own without trial for "collaborating" with ISrael.

Not only that, but Palestinian fatalities are mostly caused by other Palestinians, not Israelis.
Jordan killed 10,000 palestinians in one month
Kuwait ethnically cleansed them in 1990-91

Yet none of these three problems receives much attention from Amnesty International. When I see these problems get addressed, maybe I can have some respect for them.

[Plato & Socrates]

mr_happy wrote: I have no faith in Amnesty international. They routinely criticize Israel with token acknowledgements of Palestinian war crimes. There have been instances of ISraeli war crimes, and all of which have been proesucted by ISrael. Very few Israeli attacks can be even misconstrued as war crimes, while almost every palestinian attack is a war crime. Amnesty International has no grasp of military tactics or reality and therefore they have none of my support. Until i can see a remotely logical accusation from them that is not horribly biased and ignorant of military reality I will not give them my time of day.

Israeli war criminals let convicted murderers go to college and publish thesis papers on "the incompatibility of democracy and security in Israel." Yet the poor palestinians will execute their own without trial for "collaborating" with ISrael.

Not only that, but Palestinian fatalities are mostly caused by other Palestinians, not Israelis.
Jordan killed 10,000 palestinians in one month
Kuwait ethnically cleansed them in 1990-91

Yet none of these three problems receives much attention from Amnesty International. When I see these problems get addressed, maybe I can have some respect for them.

It may be token acknowledgment from Amnesty regarding Palestinian war-crimes in your own opinion, but nevertheless it was acknowledgment. Amnesty addresses what goes on all around the world, whether the worlds media decide to give it the exposure it deserves is another matter. In that sense Amnesty or Human rights watch is not to blame.

For example what the IDF is doing in Gaza, if it was'nt for Lebanon, Israel would be castigated all around the Globe for what she is doing there. Thank the media for not paying too much attention to it, because they have "bigger fish to fry" in reporting on war in Lebanon. The lack of exposure is great for Israeli P.R, but not for the suffering Palestinians. Who said life was fair?

[MoscowMatt]

Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: The point is not whether Israel has done anything wrong or not but how much criticism is leveled at Israel compared to what has been happening in area's like Sudan! Do you not feel there is a slight imbalance here?

Oh and just because they are a supposedly morally upstanding grouip does not mean that they are immune from corruption and outside influences. Whilst you may be able to trust them more than others it can still never be 100% and I don't just mean in relation to Israel.

Fair point, but the Imbalance lies because places like Sudan does'nt get the constant exposure like the Middle east. For example when the Africans start to control more of the economic affairs and use that wealth and abundance of natural resources wisely and the western business interests begin to feel the pinch. Then Sudanese war-crimes and the rest which goes on around the continent will get more airtime. Our governments will get involved because of big business lobbying. Until then as long as it does'nt effect the west, we don't care. But it is a short sighted game,
because the Islamic radicalization of some sub-Sahara Africa countries, is going to bite us in our arse.
I see it with my own eyes on my traveling due to my job. This is going to be the next trouble spot, I guarantee.

Very true. Oh my word I;m actually agreeing with you on something, whatever next!! :lol: :lol:

[MoscowMatt]

Redruin wrote: "Oh and just because they are a supposedly morally upstanding grouip does not mean that they are immune from corruption and outside influences" - it's clear the Israeli government is immune from such in your mind.

Did I say that, erm no!!! So that pisses on your chips my friend!! :lol:

[Plato & Socrates]

MoscowMatt wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: The point is not whether Israel has done anything wrong or not but how much criticism is leveled at Israel compared to what has been happening in area's like Sudan! Do you not feel there is a slight imbalance here?

Oh and just because they are a supposedly morally upstanding grouip does not mean that they are immune from corruption and outside influences. Whilst you may be able to trust them more than others it can still never be 100% and I don't just mean in relation to Israel.

Fair point, but the Imbalance lies because places like Sudan does'nt get the constant exposure like the Middle east. For example when the Africans start to control more of the economic affairs and use that wealth and abundance of natural resources wisely and the western business interests begin to feel the pinch. Then Sudanese war-crimes and the rest which goes on around the continent will get more airtime. Our governments will get involved because of big business lobbying. Until then as long as it does'nt effect the west, we don't care. But it is a short sighted game,
because the Islamic radicalization of some sub-Sahara Africa countries, is going to bite us in our arse.
I see it with my own eyes on my traveling due to my job. This is going to be the next trouble spot, I guarantee.

Very true. Oh my word I;m actually agreeing with you on something, whatever next!! :lol: :lol:

Dinner at one of Gordon Ramsey's restaurants in London, drinks & spirits included, on your tab naturally. :lol:

[superskippy]

Quote: MoscowMatt, Amnesty is a well respected organisation. Just like Human rights watch. Many pro-Israelis on this forum have used these organisations findings, to back up there arguments. "And do you know what?" It is not a organisation you can discredit. Why cant you just except, that MAYBE? these groups have it right. Because Israel is the recipient of their criticism on this occasion, it does'nt mean they are bias or anti-semitic or anything other but telling it how it is. ie; Telling the truth.

Amnesty is a respected organization only to those who vehemently agree with it's positions. It has become enormously political in recent times moving far away from it's original purpose. The proof of it's ever growing political influences are easy to point out just by looking at where they spend an enormous amount of their time covering vs actual areas of searous humanitarian issues.

[jon]

whynot wrote: Quote: Sourced from Wikepedia.

we knew how wikepedia work

i can pay 1000 person to change all iunformation in wekepedia as i want

all the info in wiki is from amateur

here i have post a rapport from a confirmed organisation amnesty
Yeah the info on Wikepedia is Pro Israel., if you have not noticed how it corrects what it wants people to think about Zionism, nazism and other forms of racist nationalism where people think there nationality accounts for a race other then human.

[cap'n queasy]

The anti-Israel bias that Amnesty International has exhibited by issuing 7 reports about Sudan where hundreds of thousands of people were exterminated while in the same time period issuing 39 reports about Israel is pretty clear cut and damning.

This organization has lost all credibility to me. I mean that is just ludicrous and unbelievable.

Why don't they deal with the real human rights violators?

[Plato & Socrates]

cap'n queasy wrote: The anti-Israel bias that Amnesty International has exhibited by issuing 7 reports about Sudan where hundreds of thousands of people were exterminated while in the same time period issuing 39 reports about Israel is pretty clear cut and damning.

This organization has lost all credibility to me. I mean that is just ludicrous and unbelievable.

Why don't they deal with the real human rights violators?

How many times have you posted on the Africa forum cap'n? Theres your answer. I might care, so may a few others, but the vast majority, it just so far removed to be unreal. How many people cared about the former Yugoslavia? Its not even about colour, because the former yugoslavian states, there populations were white.
What drives people to be so passionate about the middle east crisis? Maybe because for many people, there is a religious aspect to it. All I can say is that to many people, it is the most important world, because it has gone on for too long.

[mendosan]

Plato & Socrates wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: The anti-Israel bias that Amnesty International has exhibited by issuing 7 reports about Sudan where hundreds of thousands of people were exterminated while in the same time period issuing 39 reports about Israel is pretty clear cut and damning.

This organization has lost all credibility to me. I mean that is just ludicrous and unbelievable.

Why don't they deal with the real human rights violators?

How many times have you posted on the Africa forum cap'n? Theres your answer. I might care, so may a few others, but the vast majority, it just so far removed to be unreal. How many people cared about the former Yugoslavia? Its not even about colour, because the former yugoslavian states, there populations were white.
What drives people to be so passionate about the middle east crisis? Maybe because for many people, there is a religious aspect to it. All I can say is that to many people, it is the most important world, because it has gone on for too long.

Amnesty's Job isn't to get passionate about an area and certinaly not because its religiously significant. There does seem to be a massive discrepancy on reporting human rights abuses, I think the reason is its pretty easy to investigate alleged Human rights abuses in open democracy's where as it would actually require some effort to travel to areas like the Sudan and report actual Genocide.