Sunday, September 26, 2010

More on the UNHRC's extreme bias

In the UNHRC report on the June flotillas, we have already seen how the Human Rights Council has no compunction about twisting international law specifically to demonize Israel.

Elsewhere in the report, we can see how much they twist easily verifiable facts as well.

Here is how they justify believing biased, lying "eyewitnesses" over actual video evidence:

20. In ascertaining the facts surrounding the Israeli interception of the Gaza-bound flotilla, the Mission gave particular weight to the direct evidence received from interviews with eye witnesses and crew, as well as the forensic evidence and interviews with government officials. In light of seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media storage devices and of the suppression of that material with the disclosure only of a selected and minute quantity of it, the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who appeared before us.

So when witnesses said one thing and video evidence showed something completely different, they chose to believe the liars.

And how do we know that the witnesses are unreliable at best, and liars at worst? Why, the UNHRC admits it! In paragraph 114:

The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope.
Why does the report even bring this up? Simple - because that's exactly what the very same "eyewitnesses" claimed, in contradiction to the video evidence released both by the IDF and by the activists themselves.

Paragraph 114 proves that the UNHRC knows that the witnesses are unreliable but even so they judge them to be more trustworthy than direct, clear video evidence!

Even so, the UNHRC expects us to believe that "live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers" - as if the IHH fighters would have been standing on deck, as sitting ducks, waiting to be picked off one by one before the IDF soldiers rappelled onto the deck. And that the helicopter was firing 9mm rounds onto the deck (all of the dead were killed by 9mm bullets.) And that the IDF soldiers would somehow have avoided firing their weapons as soon as they hit the deck and allowed themselves to be beaten up with metal clubs even though the IDF had, according to the UNHRC, already been using live fire. The entire narrative is utterly nonsensical.

The rule seems to have been, when the UNHRC had no direct and incontrovertible evidence that passengers were lying, they must have been telling the absolute truth, and that the veracity of the "eyewitnesses" were not the least bit harmed by proof that they were wrong.

(h/t Professor Miao)