• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Palestine / Israel nightmare rages on, even on facebook

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
The notes from this article above demonstrate a few things:

1. Israel is focused on finding the terrorists and not killing civillians. -The majority of deaths are in the target profile age range and it is disproportionate to the age and profile representation in the population showing that they are targeting a specific profile.

2. Hamas has skewed figures in the past to manipulate media and world sympathy.

3. The UN relys on Hamas run sources for its numbers- Hugely biased as they are a known propaganda machine and have been proven to supply skewed numbers in the past as in Operation Cast Lead- where during the fight they said only 50 combatants had been killed and years later admitted the number was closer to 600 - that they previously reported as civilian casualties.

4. Militants wear plain clothes so there is a skewed line of who is a militant.
 
Stop Bill C-10

praktik

TRIBE Member
I understand the Saletan piece perfectly. It's a comment on the moral & ethical quagmire of war, and i agree with it completely.

However you're trying to divorce Israel's actions from what Hamas is doing to provoke those actions, which frankly is silly.

Nope, this is what you imagine I am doing to more easily score your points. I'm actually taking issue with the moral pedestal Israel has created itself, which can very much be criticized independently - what defenders of Israel are trying to do is explain each infraction of human rights and dead innocents at the hands of IDF as something they were forced into because Hamas uses human shields.

So our argument is one of weighting, not absolutes. I am NOT saying "Hamas doesn't matter when explaining Israeli actions", but that it does not matter as much as is claimed when IDF is defending the piles of dead innocents from its latest escapade into the occupied territories. You are saying not that Israel is blameless, but that it has less blame than I am asserting because Hamas is more responsible for the way IDF forces fire into heavily populated areas than the people firing those munitions (because human shields - or something). Ok got a bit catty, but you see my point - we're talking degrees here, not absolutes.

For someone who reads "perfectly" - its interesting you could even make a comment about how I am divorcing Israel from Hamas when I am on record a few hours ago explaining how the two are linked in a "dance" and that from some perspectives it is absolutely necessary to understand how one action lead to this reaction and so on...The issue is that people arbitrarily set "start points" so that we understand the latest escalation from their preferred bad guy being the "starter".

So did the last escalation start cause of the kidnapping of Israelis? Or did it start when those individuals lost loved ones in the 1st intifada and decided to seek revenge when they were older? Or did it start before that with the occupation itself - or perhaps where boundaries were drawn after WWI?

People like to understand things in linear causal chains with defined ends and beginnings - applied to this conflict the approach doesn't make sense cause it never ends, we can always find a action on the other side that is an antecedent to the reaction we are trying to explain... In most cases this is a bit of a fool's errand of a debate but surprisingly effective - I think - at mollifying critics of Israel who are constantly accused of not appreciating the full extent of Evil Israel is facing, which obviously means that all the civilians they killed this summer were just a horrible tragic accident and nothing could have been done better or with more respect for human life to avoid this.
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The council that founded UNWRA so they wouldn't have to deal with the conflict directly. UNWRA is the most biased of all of these. Israel found weapons in a UNWRA school confiscated them gave them to UNWRA to prove their concerns and in under a week the same weapons were back in the school provided to Hamas by UNWRA. Ben KI Moon has been anti-Israel since long before this conflict.

And you feel my sources are biased? lol pfft.

The mere fact that people have criticised an organisation doesn't mean they are wrong or that their work is bereft of merit.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
The mere fact that people have criticised an organisation doesn't mean they are wrong or that their work is bereft of merit.

Doesnt mean they are right either which was my point.

Most of the agencies he quoted have longstanding biases against Israel well known and well documented.
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
Doesnt mean they are right either which was my point.

Most of the agencies he quoted have longstanding biases against Israel well known and well documented.

The only broad criticism of AI in that wikipedia article in respect to israel is being made by...well Israel. Other criticism is related to individual events (ie: an AI UK campaigner, who would not have had any responsibility for AI's Israel/Palestine work. (AI UK is a separate entity than the one that deals with the middle east.)

I don't know much about the others, but assume you've just broadly brushed them aside as biased as well without looking deeper than wikipedia.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
The only broad criticism of AI in that wikipedia article in respect to israel is being made by...well Israel. Other criticism is related to individual events (ie: an AI UK campaigner, who would not have had any responsibility for AI's Israel/Palestine work. (AI UK is a separate entity than the one that deals with the middle east.)

I don't know much about the others, but assume you've just broadly brushed them aside as biased as well without looking deeper than wikipedia.

Or perhaps i was on my way out the door and wanted to quickly respond. Thats actually what happened.
 

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Amnesty International - Here take a look at the organization you purport to be on the level.

AI disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.
In violation of its policy of “impartiality,” Amnesty employs two anti-Israel activists with well-documented histories of radical activism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Deborah Hyams and Saleh Hijazi, as researchers in its “Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian Authority” section.
Allegations of “war crimes”: Distorts international law, misusing terms like “collective punishment,” “occupying power,” and “disproportionate” in its condemnations of Israel’s Gaza policy.
AI’s report, “Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction” (July 2009), charges Israel with “war crimes” during the conflict. The 127-page publication ignores considerable evidence that Hamas used human shields, minimizes Palestinian violations of international law, and promotes boycotts and “lawfare” against Israel.
During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, AI unjustifiably accused Israel of “war crimes” and “deliberate attacks on civilians,” and relied on Lebanese “eyewitnesses” to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers.
AI hosted a “Russell Tribunal on Palestine” on November 8, 2010, dealing with “Corporate complicity in Israel’s violations of International Law.”
Lawfare: On February 2, 2009, several media outlets reported that AI transferred files to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor regarding alleged “war crimes” committed by Israel. These reports made no mention of any AI initiative regarding Hamas war crimes aided by Iran and Syria.
AI defended the exploitation of British courts by pro-Palestinian “lawfare” activists. Amnesty-UK Director Kate Allen, along with other NGO officials, signed a letter published in the Guardian (“We must not renege on war crime laws,” January 16, 2010), protesting proposed changes to British law that would limit the unregulated access to UK judges that allows for politically motivated cases.
Arms embargo against Israel: Campaigns for an arms embargo against Israel, while ignoring the massive flow of offensive weapons and explosives from Iran and Syria into Gaza. An April 1, 2009 press release (“Shipment reaches Israel, President Obama urged to halt further exports”) revealed that AI tracked a vessel carrying arms across the Atlantic Ocean and through the Mediterranean Sea. Amnesty-USA accompanied this report with a call for action, including letters to Secretary of State Clinton labeling Israel a “grave violator of human rights” and demanding to know the “reason behind sending these arms now.”
Defending those linked to terror: Following the January 2011 conviction and sentencing of Ittijah head Ameer Makhoul on charges of spying for Hezbollah, AI claimed, “Ameer Makhoul’s jailing is a very disturbing development...[He] is well known for his human rights activism on behalf of Palestinians in Israel and those living under Israeli occupation. We fear that this may be the underlying reason for his imprisonment.”
In 2010, senior staff member Gita Saghal was suspended after she condemned AI’s alliance with an alleged Taliban supporter.
“Apartheid” rhetoric: The release of the report “Troubled Waters – Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water” (October 2009) coincided with a campaign alleging that “Israel’s Control of Water [is] a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing.” Ben White, author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide, spoke at the Amnesty-UK release of the report, as well as at other Amnesty-UK events.
In August 2010, the executive director of Amnesty-Finland, Frank Johansson, referred to Israel as “a scum state” on his blog.
Amnesty International Australia has been accused of exercising improper oversight over its Facebook page, where several racist and antisemitic comments have been posted. One such comment states: "May god send another Hitler and rid the world from the cancer called the Jews."
In December 2013, admitted to working with the Alkarama foundation, a Geneva-based organization claiming to promote human rights, whose Qatari co-founder, Abd al-Rahman bin 'Umayr al-Nu'aymi (Nu'aymi), has been accused of financing Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen.

Trust me when I say the others listed are worse.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
The only broad criticism of AI in that wikipedia article in respect to israel is being made by...well Israel. Other criticism is related to individual events (ie: an AI UK campaigner, who would not have had any responsibility for AI's Israel/Palestine work. (AI UK is a separate entity than the one that deals with the middle east.)

I don't know much about the others, but assume you've just broadly brushed them aside as biased as well without looking deeper than wikipedia.

I've followed these NGOs quite closely for over two decades and studied them closely in my undergraduate - the criticism complaints are, i've come to understand, typically signs that AI/HRW are doing something right. Orgs in this space that did not draw complaints from offended nations named in their reports would mean they might as well stop everything and sell lemonade instead.

Its also especially instructive to watch how America will gleefully reference say, a report on Russian control of their press or surveillance and use it to score points - only to use a report against someone they didn't like (such as countries engaged in torture and occupations, like America and Israel) as an example of bias.

The key determinant here is themselves: if HRW/AI say something against an enemy - great - lets use that in our propagandizing against them. They say something against us or our ally and its a sign of bias/hate/irrationality.

I'm not sure how many critics have bothered to dig into the quantity of work done by these orgs around the world - but they're not here to criticize Israel/US - they have global reach and there hasn't been too many countries, Canada included, that haven't drawn valid criticism from these NGOs.
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
Amnesty International - Here take a look at the organization you purport to be on the level.

AI disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.
This is a mere statement. What does properly representing the complexity of the conflict entail? What more severe violations in the region have they ignored? And more to the point, "ignoring more severe HR violations" is a tacit admission that Israel is committing violations (not to mention it's more of this 'look over there' tactic.)


In violation of its policy of “impartiality,” Amnesty employs two anti-Israel activists with well-documented histories of radical activism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Deborah Hyams and Saleh Hijazi, as researchers in its “Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian Authority” section.

Allegations of “war crimes”: Distorts international law, misusing terms like “collective punishment,” “occupying power,” and “disproportionate” in its condemnations of Israel’s Gaza policy.
Are you fucking serious. THAT's a criticism of AI? They are biased because they use the terms 'war crimes', 'collective punishment', and 'disproportionate'? Do you know ANYTHING about human rights? I can point you to UN reports that use ALL those terms. Is that organisation biased and untrustworthy too?

AI’s report, “Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction” (July 2009), charges Israel with “war crimes” during the conflict. The 127-page publication ignores considerable evidence that Hamas used human shields, minimizes Palestinian violations of international law, and promotes boycotts and “lawfare” against Israel.
This isn't a criticism of AI. It's fucking accurate. The UN Goldstone report says all these things too.


During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, AI unjustifiably accused Israel of “war crimes” and “deliberate attacks on civilians,” and relied on Lebanese “eyewitnesses” to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers.
AI hosted a “Russell Tribunal on Palestine” on November 8, 2010, dealing with “Corporate complicity in Israel’s violations of International Law.”
Lawfare: On February 2, 2009, several media outlets reported that AI transferred files to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor regarding alleged “war crimes” committed by Israel. These reports made no mention of any AI initiative regarding Hamas war crimes aided by Iran and Syria.
AI defended the exploitation of British courts by pro-Palestinian “lawfare” activists. Amnesty-UK Director Kate Allen, along with other NGO officials, signed a letter published in the Guardian (“We must not renege on war crime laws,” January 16, 2010), protesting proposed changes to British law that would limit the unregulated access to UK judges that allows for politically motivated cases.

Arms embargo against Israel: Campaigns for an arms embargo against Israel, while ignoring the massive flow of offensive weapons and explosives from Iran and Syria into Gaza. An April 1, 2009 press release (“Shipment reaches Israel, President Obama urged to halt further exports”) revealed that AI tracked a vessel carrying arms across the Atlantic Ocean and through the Mediterranean Sea. Amnesty-USA accompanied this report with a call for action, including letters to Secretary of State Clinton labeling Israel a “grave violator of human rights” and demanding to know the “reason behind sending these arms now.”
Defending those linked to terror: Following the January 2011 conviction and sentencing of Ittijah head Ameer Makhoul on charges of spying for Hezbollah, AI claimed, “Ameer Makhoul’s jailing is a very disturbing development...[He] is well known for his human rights activism on behalf of Palestinians in Israel and those living under Israeli occupation. We fear that this may be the underlying reason for his imprisonment.”
In 2010, senior staff member Gita Saghal was suspended after she condemned AI’s alliance with an alleged Taliban supporter.
“Apartheid” rhetoric: The release of the report “Troubled Waters – Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water” (October 2009) coincided with a campaign alleging that “Israel’s Control of Water [is] a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing.” Ben White, author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide, spoke at the Amnesty-UK release of the report, as well as at other Amnesty-UK events.
In August 2010, the executive director of Amnesty-Finland, Frank Johansson, referred to Israel as “a scum state” on his blog.
Amnesty International Australia has been accused of exercising improper oversight over its Facebook page, where several racist and antisemitic comments have been posted. One such comment states: "May god send another Hitler and rid the world from the cancer called the Jews."
In December 2013, admitted to working with the Alkarama foundation, a Geneva-based organization claiming to promote human rights, whose Qatari co-founder, Abd al-Rahman bin 'Umayr al-Nu'aymi (Nu'aymi), has been accused of financing Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen.

Trust me when I say the others listed are worse.

All of this stuff... None of it shows that AI is being inaccurate or unfair. Outside of the Finland director, you've basically enumerated a list of times when AI has criticized bad things Israel has done. By your reasoning, it appears that you think AI is a poor organisation by virtue of the fact that they criticise Israel.

That's completely circular. You won't trust their criticism of Israel because they criticize Israel.
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
I've followed these NGOs quite closely for over two decades and studied them closely in my undergraduate - the criticism complaints are, i've come to understand, typically signs that AI/HRW are doing something right. Orgs in this space that did not draw complaints from offended nations named in their reports would mean they might as well stop everything and sell lemonade instead.

Its also especially instructive to watch how America will gleefully reference say, a report on Russian control of their press or surveillance and use it to score points - only to use a report against someone they didn't like (such as countries engaged in torture and occupations, like America and Israel) as an example of bias.

The key determinant here is themselves: if HRW/AI say something against an enemy - great - lets use that in our propagandizing against them. They say something against us or our ally and its a sign of bias/hate/irrationality.

I'm not sure how many critics have bothered to dig into the quantity of work done by these orgs around the world - but they're not here to criticize Israel/US - they have global reach and there hasn't been too many countries, Canada included, that haven't drawn valid criticism from these NGOs.

AI is meticulous about researching their criticism. In fact, they receive a lot of criticism for appearing slow on the trigger on a lot of violations. This is generally because their management and legal teams are utterly anal about being able to back up claims they make. There is a lot of criticism of Canada too (although it rarely makes the news.) Canadian mining companies are pretty brutal where the laws allow them to be.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

praktik

TRIBE Member
AI disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region..

Was there a quantitative analysis supporting this conclusion?

In violation of its policy of “impartiality,” Amnesty employs two anti-Israel activists with well-documented histories of radical activism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Deborah Hyams and Saleh Hijazi, as researchers in its “Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian Authority” section.
Allegations of “war crimes”: Distorts international law, misusing terms like “collective punishment,” “occupying power,” and “disproportionate” in its condemnations of Israel’s Gaza policy.

So this here is pure "pro Israel Warrior" fodder: outside these circles, "occupying power", "collective punishment" and "war crimes" can all be accurately describing Israeli actions.

The attitude here seems to be, "but its US!! we're good so by definition these words can never be used to describe us"

AI’s report, “Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction” (July 2009), charges Israel with “war crimes” during the conflict. The 127-page publication ignores considerable evidence that Hamas used human shields, minimizes Palestinian violations of international law, and promotes boycotts and “lawfare” against Israel.

Yep - I support boycotts too. This is the reasonable approach to take and from an activist perspective, I would hope Israel would welcome democratic, non violent means of protest against its policies given the extent to which its policies have provoked violent responses. Clearly they are following the South Africa model that worked so well in the 80s - I'm not sure this will be as successful but I think one can support a boycott on Israel and still have legitimate criticisms of its policy.

The existence of support for boycotts does not, a priori, mean one is hopelessly biased against Israel - for this more is needed.

Note the war crimes charges from Cast Lead are far from settled, while defenders of Israel frequently cite Goldstone's retraction of "deliberate policy targeting civilians" as if it means his whole report can now be tossed out the window and Israel is blameless in cast lead. This is not true:

Goldstone’s retraction largely focuses on this point [deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel] and should be welcomed. This does not, however, mean that there were no cases of wrongdoing in Operation Cast Lead or that charges of war crimes simply collapse. Given the high civilian casualty figures and the overall level of destruction, the results of the army’s internal investigations of such charges are, in my view, perfunctory and far from convincing. (The precise figures, as compiled by B’Tselem, are given in my piece.) Many specific cases—such as the killing of the handcuffed, unarmed Iyad al-Samouni on January 5, 2009, to mention but one example—remain unsolved. I have little confidence that the army intends to investigate these cases with the seriousness they deserve; nor do I think that we are talking only about rare and episodic aberrations. Nonetheless, I repeat: it is wrong to posit a deliberate army policy of targeting civilians.​
he goes on:

Moreover, the absence of a policy to kill civilians deliberately is not enough; actions that inevitably result in high civilian casualties, and that follow from premeditated decisions on the part of the army command, remain crimes of war. In my view, the extensive use of white phosphorus and the heavy artillery bombardments in densely populated areas of Gaza—both amply documented during Operation Cast Lead—clearly fall into this category.

During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, AI unjustifiably accused Israel of “war crimes” and “deliberate attacks on civilians,” and relied on Lebanese “eyewitnesses” to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers.
AI hosted a “Russell Tribunal on Palestine” on November 8, 2010, dealing with “Corporate complicity in Israel’s violations of International Law.”
Lawfare: On February 2, 2009, several media outlets reported that AI transferred files to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor regarding alleged “war crimes” committed by Israel. These reports made no mention of any AI initiative regarding Hamas war crimes aided by Iran and Syria.

AI doesn't have to mirror every thing it does for Israel for Hamas or vice versa - and the report on Israel could still be accurate with or without a similar report on Hamas.

That said, they are still putting arab feet to the fire all over the place - here is AI Canada's section on Syria.

The charge that they aren't hard on arab violations of human rights is a hollow one.


AI defended the exploitation of British courts by pro-Palestinian “lawfare” activists. Amnesty-UK Director Kate Allen, along with other NGO officials, signed a letter published in the Guardian (“We must not renege on war crime laws,” January 16, 2010), protesting proposed changes to British law that would limit the unregulated access to UK judges that allows for politically motivated cases.

I fully agree with those points. The issue with international law is states have too much power to thwart it and bend it to their interest - i would protest laws preventing access to judges on war crimes cases too!

In any event, why a philosophical difference on a question of jurisprudence is a sign of irrational bias against Israel is beyond me - its clashing worldviews, thats it.


Arms embargo against Israel: Campaigns for an arms embargo against Israel, while ignoring the massive flow of offensive weapons and explosives from Iran and Syria into Gaza. An April 1, 2009 press release (“Shipment reaches Israel, President Obama urged to halt further exports”) revealed that AI tracked a vessel carrying arms across the Atlantic Ocean and through the Mediterranean Sea. Amnesty-USA accompanied this report with a call for action, including letters to Secretary of State Clinton labeling Israel a “grave violator of human rights” and demanding to know the “reason behind sending these arms now.”

This is Amnesty-USA - I think they have a legitimate ground to complain! Taxpayer dollars and arms are going to Israel. AI-USA is exercising its democratic right within that country to protest its involvement in supporting a foreign occupation that has caused an unending multitude of human rights violations, which you know, is the kind of stuff these people really care about!

I know, weird that AI-USA would care both about the Israeli occupation and their tax dollars supporting the occupation toO!


Defending those linked to terror: Following the January 2011 conviction and sentencing of Ittijah head Ameer Makhoul on charges of spying for Hezbollah, AI claimed, “Ameer Makhoul’s jailing is a very disturbing development...[He] is well known for his human rights activism on behalf of Palestinians in Israel and those living under Israeli occupation. We fear that this may be the underlying reason for his imprisonment.”

Strange how they omit this:

The confession on which Ameer Makhoul's conviction and sentencing were based was admitted as evidence by the court, despite allegations that this statement was made under duress and that he was tortured during his interrogation. It also appears that the information allegedly conveyed by Ameer Makhoul was publicly available.​
Even someone who helped terrorists, in this case by providing public info, doesn't deserve to be tortured.

You know that AI like, basically spends all its time worrying about things like torture, even if the people being tortured are terrorists?


In 2010, senior staff member Gita Saghal was suspended after she condemned AI’s alliance with an alleged Taliban supporter.

ok i didnt research this one....who knows what it means given the quality of the rest.

“Apartheid” rhetoric: The release of the report “Troubled Waters – Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water” (October 2009) coincided with a campaign alleging that “Israel’s Control of Water [is] a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing.” Ben White, author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide, spoke at the Amnesty-UK release of the report, as well as at other Amnesty-UK events.

Apartheid is an accurate term.

Roadmap to Apartheid

In August 2010, the executive director of Amnesty-Finland, Frank Johansson, referred to Israel as “a scum state” on his blog.
Amnesty International Australia has been accused of exercising improper oversight over its Facebook page, where several racist and antisemitic comments have been posted. One such comment states: "May god send another Hitler and rid the world from the cancer called the Jews..

Cmon, internet comments? Please... need anyone say more?

In December 2013, admitted to working with the Alkarama foundation, a Geneva-based organization claiming to promote human rights, whose Qatari co-founder, Abd al-Rahman bin 'Umayr al-Nu'aymi (Nu'aymi), has been accused of financing Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen.

Here's his letter of resignation:

The release presents me as a "terrorist financier and facilitator who has provided money and equipment and communication support al- Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen for over a decade".

I wish through this release to deny all these totally unfounded accusations that aim to silence me because of my publicly declared opposition to U.S. policies in the Arab world and, in particular in the Gulf area since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

It is a known fact that daring today to denounce the occupation and violations of the rights of peoples in the region can lead to such accusations but I proclaim loudly that I will continue to assert my right to freely express my political views even should they displease some and I will continue to act with honor and respect of international law, the very same law which continues to be flouted blatantly by those who accuse me.

My struggle for human rights and the defense of victims of violations has already earned me since several years to be declared "persona non grata" by the repressive regimes in the region.

I also raise the question of why , if the U.S. authorities , as they say in their statement had such serious accusations against me and for such a long time – over a decade -, they have not acted earlier . The fact that my name is associated with another person from Yemen, Mr. Humaikani , founder of a major political party in this country, and also quoted in the same press release and referred to the same penalties, suggests to me that it is probably the outstanding legal work led by the organization Alkarama on targeted killings in Yemen conducted by the U.S. that triggered this reaction against me. Indeed, just two weeks ago I attended the ceremony of the 2013 Alkarama Award for human rights defenders, awarded this yearto a Yemeni journalist, Mr. Shaye, imprisoned for three years on U.S. orders because he unveiled to the world the real effects of a U.S. Drone attack: 14 women and 21 children shredded by U.S. missiles.

This kind of sanctions imposed for political reasons by the U.S. authorities are not new and many people have been wrongly accused before being bleached after suffering for many years of unjust sanctions. It is shocking to see that even today, anyone in the Arab world who does humanitarian and human rights work but expresses not "politically correct" opinions, not because those which violate universal principles but simply because they oppose repression, face a strong risk of being branded as "supporting terrorism".

I will take my part for my fight against this injustice by all legal means, including before US courts, and I remain also willing to talk to the authorities of this country to dismiss suspicions, which I am convinced, are largely fed by repressive regimes in the region.​
Seems rather similar story to the targeting of other voices saying inconvenient things about US policy. I'm far from convinced these alleged links to Al Qaeda are anything other than a US driven propaganda campaign - and it seems to be working quite well.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Anyway Hipsterave just to say I'm going to stop posting today and take a break - but i really liked the back and forth and the way we kept it civil!

I was wrong to characterize you as "tucking tail" - well maybe you did a little while ago but you have been tangoing well today and I retract my earlier statement.

See - there is certainly a gulf between us - one that has each of us thinking of the other in slightly cartoonish ways, I mean, we're so far apart its almost the way we HAVE to understand it.

So give it a chance maybe in future - we probably wont change each other's minds, but maybe we'll plant a seed and at least we can keep doing it respectfully!

...even though I'm right and you're wrong...


lol
 

Rocky

TRIBE Member
Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The council that founded UNWRA so they wouldn't have to deal with the conflict directly. UNWRA is the most biased of all of these. Israel found weapons in a UNWRA school confiscated them gave them to UNWRA to prove their concerns and in under a week the same weapons were back in the school provided to Hamas by UNWRA. Ben KI Moon has been anti-Israel since long before this conflict.

And you feel my sources are biased? lol pfft.

The only broad criticism of AI in that wikipedia article in respect to israel is being made by...well Israel. Other criticism is related to individual events (ie: an AI UK campaigner, who would not have had any responsibility for AI's Israel/Palestine work. (AI UK is a separate entity than the one that deals with the middle east.)

I don't know much about the others, but assume you've just broadly brushed them aside as biased as well without looking deeper than wikipedia.

Thank you. I just noticed the same when reading through the criticisms of them regarding Israel.

Hipsterave said:
Most of the agencies he quoted have longstanding biases against Israel well known and well documented.

...

AI disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.

In violation of its policy of “impartiality,” Amnesty employs two anti-Israel activists with well-documented histories of radical activism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Is it a valid criticism and characterization that AI disproportionately singles out Israel for criticism? I mean, I'm not on here arguing about whether or not Assad in Syria has committed human rights violations simply because it is the general consensus that he has. Some people have actually asked the question in this thread about why we are criticizing Israel and not Assad. It's simply because there isn't too much question over whether or not Assad has committed human rights violations. There are not a lot of Assad apologists out there. It's the same reason why it seems that people disproportionately criticize Israel in this conflict. Hamas is already labeled a terrorists organization. I'm pretty sure their actions get enough criticism. There is, however, some work to be done to convince a certain many people that Israel has committed unjustifiable acts of human rights violations and war crimes, as, in fact, they have.

Maybe what is perceived as these agencies having a longstanding bias against Israel is actually justified condemnation of Israel. Maybe the "violation of impartiality" by employing two "anti-Israeli activists" is the employment of two activists who justifiably criticize Israel. If they are on a human rights watch and witness actual cases of human rights violations perpetrated by Israel, is it a valid criticism of these employees to say that they are activists? I really hope that they are. I also wonder if they consider anyone critical of Israel to be "anti-Israel". It's very close to the label of an anti-Semite, which is sort of synonymous with "Nazi" and "Hitler". The term, anti-Israeli, immediately places the image of these employees in a nefarious frame, without actually knowing their views.

Regardless, two employees out of how many? What degree of impartiality is lost? I wonder what percentage of your trusted, impartial source, the IDF, is pro-Israel and anti-Hamas/Palestinian, and paid by the Israeli government?

Sorry, I could only read up until the point at which the above quote ends. I realized I was wasting my time.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Hipsterave

TRIBE Promoter
Rocky please send me the list of "Rocky approved" pro Israeli sources. I will be sure to use your list in the future.lol
 

Rocky

TRIBE Member
Hipsterave, this is getting embarrassing, or, at least, it should be for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor) is a non-governmental organization based in the western part of Jerusalem, whose stated aim is to generate and distribute critical analysis and reports on the output of the international NGO community for the benefit of government policy makers, journalists, philanthropic organizations, and the general public.

....

The organization was founded in 2001 by Gerald M. Steinberg under the auspices of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

....

Editing Wikipedia

The on-line communications editor of NGO Monitor, Arnie Draiman, was indefinitely banned from editing articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict for biased editing, concealing his place of work and using a second account in a way that is forbidden by Wikipedia policy.[16] Draiman was a major contributor to the articles of his employers NGO Monitor and Gerald Steinberg, and performed hundreds of edits of human rights organizations, such as B'Tselem, the New Israel Fund, Human Rights Watch and many others, to which NGO Monitor's president, Professor Gerald Steinberg, is opposed.

auspices - a divine or prophetic token.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Center_for_Public_Affairs
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) is an Israeli research institute and public policy think tank devoted to research and analysis of critical issues facing the Middle East. The center is located in Jerusalem.

No...sources don't need to be "Rocky-approved", they just need to have some credibility and some degree of impartiality. This is usually how you can tell the difference between information and propaganda.

It's hard to remain civil and just "plant seeds" when so many people are so clearly brainwashed by deeply-entrenched Israeli propaganda, and innocent people are dying because of it.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
It's hard to remain civil and just "plant seeds" when so many people are so clearly brainwashed by deeply-entrenched Israeli propaganda, and innocent people are dying because of it.

It should never be hard to remain civil, IMO.

Cause in Hipsterave's own mind he is thinking of himself in a similar way to the way we consider ourselves - as morally upright people making the right call.

So while the outcomes of the propaganda and the policies it sustains are horrible, even the most committed Pro-Israel warrior is acting out for a lot of the same fundamental motivations you are: appeals to human decency, human rights - etc.

Its just the political and human psychological elements twist things so much that we end up making the mistake of ascribing the horrific outcomes to horrific thinking.

This - in truth - is actually a far scarier realization once you consider it: for it means that it is strongly likely that nearly all the horrible things happening around us are from people who think of themselves as doing the right thing.
 
Last edited:

Rocky

TRIBE Member
^ yeah...I get all that. But sometimes the quickest way to wake someone up is to punch them in the face. They might not like you after that, but at least they're awake. :p

The documentary, "The Act of Killing", was recently recommended to me. This seems to be exactly what you are talking about. The dude at the end of the documentary, 40 years after overseeing and personally engaging in the execution of half a million people, finally seemed to realize what he did was wrong. For the people who died at his hands, it seems that that seed took far too long to grow.

When ignorance is almost willful, it's hard not to get frustrated, especially when you see it resulting in the deaths of so many innocent people.
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It looks like a lack of honest critical thinking is also at play, with people starting at an position, followed by a scramble to find sources to support it. Rather than, you know researching the validity of that position and then considering whether it needs to be changed.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

praktik

TRIBE Member
Bill maher was mentioned earlier in this thread - anyone catch Reza Aslan on that show a month or so ago? Gaza was still ongoing and he was the only voice of reason...

He was interviewed on CNN and called Maher out on his philospphy with respect to Islam (my single biggest problem with Maher's ideas):

 

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
Reza is an asshat :

» Religion or Culture? Stop FGM Middle East

Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's more prevalent in africa, but to pretend it's not happening in the middle-east and a real problem is truly disingenuous.

He also brings up women leaders in Muslim countries as some sort of counter balance to the lack of women's rights in these countries. Pakistan had a female PM (who was subsequently assassinated) yet some girls have acid thrown in their face if they try to attend school.

Listen, we can all point to specific examples of extreme or moderate behaviour. it's a matter of filtering the signal from the noise. Do you honestly think the signal from Muslim countries on the whole is one of equal rights for women?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Listen, we can all point to specific examples of extreme or moderate behaviour. it's a matter of filtering the signal from the noise. Do you honestly think the signal from Muslim countries on the whole is one of equal rights for women?

First off, I dont see where reza was "pretending" that it didn't happen in the Middle East, just that it wasn't an exclusively "muslim problem" and that christian countries do it too - even if it happens in the Middle East that point is still true... so where is this "pretending" going on?

Recall that we are dissecting a cable news piece where Reza does not have the luxury of caveating every single point...

No I dont think thats the signal and I dont think that's Reza's point either - his point, rathermore - is that idiots like those cable news hosts speak stupidly about complex phenomenae and offer an overly simplistic root cause.

THIS is his argument, which your points do nothing to address. But if you'd rather reformulate his points into a form that's easier for you to handwave away - then I guess you should be free to do that. Seems par for the course.

At core? Reza's main point is that in the heirarchy of vectors to violence against women, Islam is far lower on the list than tribal culture, local history and customs and individual psychological factors. And the problem he is addressing is everyone focusing on Islam, and ignoring all those other far more powerful determinants of action.
 

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
First off, I dont see where reza was "pretending" that it didn't happen in the Middle East, just that it wasn't an exclusively "muslim problem" and that christian countries do it too - even if it happens in the Middle East that point is still true... so where is this "pretending" going on?

watch the video again, he says :

"it's not an islamic problem, it's an African problem"

"nowhere else in the Muslim majority states is FGM an issue"

do you think those statements are correct?

At core? Reza's main point is that in the heirarchy of vectors to violence against women, Islam is far lower on the list than tribal culture, local history and customs and individual psychological factors. And the problem he is addressing is everyone focusing on Islam, and ignoring all those other far more powerful determinants of action.

Disagree. Detrimental tribal & local customs are easier to reform than religious customs (except in case where tribal & local customs have been assimilated by religion, but in those cases i'd argue they've become religious and no longer solely tribal/local)

I think there's merit to discuss all of these things together (along with education, economics & politics), but once you take religion off the table and declare it off limits you've stunted any reasonable discussion.
 

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
He also brings up women leaders in Muslim countries as some sort of counter balance to the lack of women's rights in these countries. Pakistan had a female PM (who was subsequently assassinated) yet some girls have acid thrown in their face if they try to attend school.

further on this, his points of female leaders in Muslim countries as a benchmark of women's rights is basically the same argument that racism is no longer a problem in america because Obama is president.

While those things may be positive signs, it's really just noise compared with the actual signal of the reality of the situation.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top