Thursday, July 09, 2015
- Thursday, July 09, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
- Vic Rosenthal
I’m sorry about the tone, but I can’t pretend I don’t feel strongly about this. While I’m not happy that otherwise nice Scandinavians don’t support us, it hurts much more when unfair criticism comes from our own people. And I should note that there are some American Jews that really do care about Israel, who work hard to counteract anti-Israel propaganda and to inform and influence policymakers about issues that are critical for us. But they are a minority.
There were several things that came between me and much of the US Jewish community. In short, I think my problems with Jews are symptomatic of a major change that has happened on the left side of American politics in the past two decades or so: the replacement of liberalism by what is called ‘progressivism’, but is really a doctrinaire leftism that incorporates elements of the so-called “post-modern/post-colonial” worldview. Jews, as is ever so, are in the vanguard of this movement, and it is these Jews with whom I came into conflict.
I admit to having strong opinions about some things that go against the ‘progressive’ narrative about Israel: I think Israel needs to hold on to Judea and Samaria for security reasons, because it is the spiritual and historical heartland of the Jewish people, and because we are wholly justified in this by international law. I think that the problem that the Arabs refuse to accept a Jewish presence between the river and the sea needs a solution, but that it won’t be found by expelling Jews. It’s an Arab problem, not a Jewish one.
So if this position puts me out of the mainstream, I can understand that not everyone agrees with me. What I found hard to accept was that they refused even to listen. Again, there were exceptions, but in so many cases the response was not to dispute or debate me but to try to shut me up. That was problem one.
Problem two was Barack Obama.
Almost immediately after his inauguration, when President Obama made the notorious speech in Cairo that explicitly validated the Palestinian historical narrative, I realized that, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, we were not in Kansas anymore. This was not the pragmatism of Bill Clinton or the liberalism of Lyndon Johnson or Adlai Stevenson; instead, there were echoes of Edward Said. And as Obama’s contempt for our state and our Prime Minister became clearer and his Mideast policies worse, I became more and more critical.
But most progressive Jews, many of whom had worked in his campaign, didn’t want to hear anything negative about “their President.” Especially in social media, reactions to criticism of administration policies were vicious, often including accusations of racism. The discussion ended once the question of Obama or his policies came up.
It wasn’t that we disagreed; it was that no communication was possible.
I don’t expect them to pop out of their mother’s wombs quoting Jabotinsky because of their Jewish DNA. But this wasn’t just a political disagreement. We were starting from wholly different premises, living inside different conceptual schemes.
There is a certain minimum degree of – dare I say it? – tribal attachment that traditionally characterized Jews. It’s a starting point for discussion. And they don’t have it.
A person with a tribal attachment would at least listen to a pro-Israel view because it would be important to them. He or she would be open to talk about the idea of Jewish peoplehood, the idea that there is value in the preservation of a distinct Jewish people, and that a Jewish state may be essential to it and be worth defending.
This attachment has all but disappeared among liberal or ‘progressive’ Jews. And I blame the doctrinaire leftism I mentioned above. It is responsible for both the demise of Jewish tribalism, and the obsession with race that has seized left-of-center dialogue today.
A basic principle of this ideology is that there are oppressed groups and oppressors (often called ‘people of color’ and ‘whites’). The greatest sin is racism, which is the mistreatment of people of color by whites. This actually has little or nothing to do with race: Jews are considered white, while Arabs, their genetic cousins, are ‘people of color’. Any criticism of a person of color by a white is suspect, which explains the sensitivity to my objections to Obama Administration policies.
It is seen as a form of racism for whites to behave tribally to any extent, although people of color are permitted to do so (thus Israel is described as an ‘apartheid state’, while the insistence of Mahmoud Abbas on a racially pure ‘Palestine’ is considered unexceptional). Jewish protesters whosaid the mourner’s kaddish for Palestinian victims of one of the Gaza wars did it to embarrass those of us who (tribally) care more for our own than for our enemies. Can you imagine Arabs mourning dead IDF soldiers?
Liberal American Jews have taken this to heart. Their tribalism has been stamped out. They are embarrassed to feel that there is anything special or worth preserving about Jewish peoplehood. They like Jewish food, Jewish summer camp, Jewish music, etc. But they don’t see themselves as part of a people, a distinct unit with a connection to biblical times. They have been taught that there’s something ugly, even racist, about this idea.
As a result, the best that can be expected from them is indifference, and the worst the wholesale acceptance of the Israel-as-colonial-oppressor narrative. As one of my correspondents said, “Israel is just another foreign country to them.” And it is frustrating to tribal people like Oren and myself when they just don’t care. But why should we expect them to?
Nevertheless, the tribal feeling exists elsewhere. Most Israelis, religious or secular, feel it, and most observant Jews anywhere feel it. Michael Oren obviously does. Unless carried to extremes, it is a positive force. It is what built the Jewish state, and will guarantee its continued existence. Who volunteers for a combat unit in the IDF because they see themselves as citizens of the world?
Tribalism may be out of fashion, but it may also be necessary for our collective survival. Since Korach, Jews have been easy prey to seduction by the Left. Will American Jewry suffer the same fate as Korach?
From Ian:
Why ‘Jews’ were lost in translation in BBC Children of the Gaza War documentary
Why ‘Jews’ were lost in translation in BBC Children of the Gaza War documentary
Children of the Gaza War will air on BBC Two on Wednesday nightBBC: Being Anti-Semitic is Being Anti-Israel
A BBC documentary has substituted the word “Israelis” for "Jews" in its translation of interviews with Palestinians, its maker has admitted.
Lyse Doucet has stood by the decision to translate “yahud” as “Israeli” in subtitles on her hour-long documentary Children of the Gaza War, which airs on BBC Two tonight.
The correct translation for “yahud” from Arabic to English is “Jew”.
The BBC’s chief international correspondent said that Gazan translators had advised her that Palestinian children interviewed on the programme who refer to “the Jews” actually meant Israelis.
In one instance, a Gazan child says the “yahud” are massacring Palestinians. However the subtitles read: “Israel is massacring us”.
Canada-born Ms Doucet said: “We talked to people in Gaza, we talked to translators. When [the children] say ‘Jews’, they mean ‘Israelis’.
“We felt it was a better translation of it.”
The BBC will air a show tonight, a documentary chronicling the lives of children during the Gaza war a year ago. In it, both Israeli and Palestinian children are interviewed, with one key difference. When Palestinian children say things that are unpalatable to the Western ear, the translations have been doctored.Honest Reporting: Israel’s Existence Lost in BBC Translation
One word in particular stands at the centre of this particular phenomenon: يهود, or Yahud. There is not a dictionary in existence that would not translate this word as “Jews”. The BBC have therefore taken the logical step and helpfully rendered it as “Israel”.
The maker of the 1-hour programme, Lyse Doucet, has stated that this is acceptable. She says the children didn’t mean Jews, they meant Israel. Gazan translators have assured her on this point.
Ms Doucet deserves our sympathy. Evidently, it is still harder to arouse the sympathy of the West with an anti-Semitic diatribe than an anti-Israel one — a fact for which we should certainly be thankful. Nonetheless, simply editing the words of her subjects means that Ms Doucet has not produced a documentary, but a work of fiction. It is at most “based on a true story” or “inspired by actual events”.
It wasn’t a better translation. In Arabic, Yahudi means a Jew (plural is Yahud). Yisraili means an Israeli (plural is Yisraileen). Full stop.Hamas holding two Israelis hostage in Gaza for months
Several problems came into play here.
1. The Gaza children.
A Palestinian friend told me that Palestinians commonly refer to Israelis as Yahud. It may have begun out of hostility, but has become common usage. I’m also told that more educated Palestinians sometimes do make the distinction and use the word Yisraili. This provides a window into the Beeb’s thinking, but Doucet’s not off the hook.
The kids Doucet talked to were either born after Israel disengaged from Gaza, or too young to have any memories of “the occupation.” They grew up with a purely Palestinian education and media, both of which indoctrinate kids to deny the existence of Israel.
2. The translators.
The Gaza translators the Beeb relied on are part of a bigger issue.
The Western media depends on freelance Palestinian (and Israeli) writers, photographers, and cameramen (collectively known as stringers) as well as the assistance of “fixers,” who help reporters get access, navigate the foreign land, and avoid trouble, among other things.
Stringers know the area, and employing them is a less expensive option than flying in entire reporting teams. Also, it’s not a bad thing for Big Media to provide job opportunities for the locals.
The problem is when the Palestinian support team brings its own baggage to the coverage
Two Israeli men are being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, including one who was captured in the Strip in September after he sneaked over the border fence for unknown reasons, it was cleared for publication Thursday.
The man who has been in Gaza since September was named as Avraham Mengistu, 28, of Ashkelon. The gag order on his case was lifted Thursday morning following a lawsuit from Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth. The name of the second man, a Bedouin who also apparently crossed the border of his own volition, was not released.
Ethiopian-born Israeli Mengistu is alive and being kept by Hamas in Gaza, an Israeli security source said Thursday in a briefing with reporters. The source said no negotiations were currently taking place for his release.
An official said Israel does not consider the Israeli to be a captive, and that Israel was treating the matter as a humanitarian issue. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
Hamas denies holding Mengistu, but the Israeli sources said this was because the Islamist group is seeking to avoid responsibility for his fate.
- Thursday, July 09, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
- Amnesty, Gaza Platform
In the Jerusalem Post, Philip Luther, the director of Amnesty International’s Middle Eastern and North African program, responded to NGO Monitor's criticism of the "Gaza Platform."
"We are not claiming that the Gaza Platform itself, on its own, gives you a conclusion in every case about whether a war crime was committed or not. It is not able to do that; we are not claiming to do that,” Luther says.
Actually, Amnesty does claim that the tool proves Israeli war crimes.
Here are two screenshots from the beginning of the video, made by Amnesty, touting the purpose of their Gaza Platform:
If the tool doesn't prove any individual case is a war crime, how can Amnesty claim that the tool proves Israel committed war crimes? Does Amnesty believe that a bunch of unproven allegations based on lying sources somehow becomes more accurate when you put a pretty face on top of lies?
Yet another lie by Amnesty, and more proof that the platform is meant not to illuminate but to obscure.
All my posts proving Amnesty bias and lies about their Gaza Platform can be seen here.
"We are not claiming that the Gaza Platform itself, on its own, gives you a conclusion in every case about whether a war crime was committed or not. It is not able to do that; we are not claiming to do that,” Luther says.
Actually, Amnesty does claim that the tool proves Israeli war crimes.
Here are two screenshots from the beginning of the video, made by Amnesty, touting the purpose of their Gaza Platform:
If the tool doesn't prove any individual case is a war crime, how can Amnesty claim that the tool proves Israel committed war crimes? Does Amnesty believe that a bunch of unproven allegations based on lying sources somehow becomes more accurate when you put a pretty face on top of lies?
Yet another lie by Amnesty, and more proof that the platform is meant not to illuminate but to obscure.
All my posts proving Amnesty bias and lies about their Gaza Platform can be seen here.
- Thursday, July 09, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
William Schabas, the original chair of the UNHRC commission designed to malign Israel's conduct in the Gaza war last summer, appeared on BBC's HardTalk to defend himself from accusations of bias and to defend the report that he started before he was forced to resign:
His defense of his desire to investigate Israel despite his bias is laughable.
The criticism that many leveled against him is that the appearance of bias is enough to disqualify anyone in his position. Two examples of many from UN Watch:
Schabas explicitly admits that he is biased, He participated in a kangaroo court charging Israel of war crimes. He was paid by the PLO for services. He embraced comparisons between Zionism and Nazism when speaking with his friends, antisemite Richard Falk. He applied to become Falk's replacement as special rapporteur to Gaza. But this isn't the appearance of bias - it is only the charge of the appearance of bias. And, as he goes n to say, the people accusing him of this are just a bunch of Zionists.
And Zionists are "our enemies."
Unfortunately, the Hardtalk host didn't press him on this bizarre distinction that exists only in his head between "appearance of bias" and "charges of appearance of bias." And he then accuses those who accuse him of having an appearance of bias of being Zionists.
Schabas then goes on to defend the UNHRC's pattern of anti-Israel bias by claiming, even more bizarrely, that even though more than half of UNHRC resolutions are against Israel, that the commission actually spends less than 1/193 of its time on Israel. (13:40)
He is lying. As UN Watch notes:
Schabas knows the laws of war well, and his misuse of that term here shows that he was never suited to judge Israel of anything.
His defense of his desire to investigate Israel despite his bias is laughable.
The criticism that many leveled against him is that the appearance of bias is enough to disqualify anyone in his position. Two examples of many from UN Watch:
But Schabas bizarrely claims that there was no appearance of bias (8:10) - but that there was an outside campaign charging him of an appearance of bias.
- Joseph Weiler, President of the European University Institute in Florence, the European Union Jean Monnet Chair at New York University School of Law, and Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of International Law,described Schabas’ tenure on the commission of inquiry as “a self-evident case where an appearance of impartiality might be created… When the appearance of justice is compromised, so is justice itself.”
- Lord David Pannick, QC, a leading UK human rights lawyer and former High Court judge—whom Schabas has often cited as a legal authority [1]—published an article in The Times that sharply criticized Schabas’ appointment given his prior record of prejudicial statements. Lord Pannick stated the legal principle that a person should not sit in a judicial or quasi-judicial role “if the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.” The very “appearance of bias,” noted Pannick, is sufficient to disqualify a person. Schabas’ protestations that he would leave his opinions “at the door” were, under the legal principles of impartiality, “unlikely to be helpful.”
Schabas explicitly admits that he is biased, He participated in a kangaroo court charging Israel of war crimes. He was paid by the PLO for services. He embraced comparisons between Zionism and Nazism when speaking with his friends, antisemite Richard Falk. He applied to become Falk's replacement as special rapporteur to Gaza. But this isn't the appearance of bias - it is only the charge of the appearance of bias. And, as he goes n to say, the people accusing him of this are just a bunch of Zionists.
And Zionists are "our enemies."
Unfortunately, the Hardtalk host didn't press him on this bizarre distinction that exists only in his head between "appearance of bias" and "charges of appearance of bias." And he then accuses those who accuse him of having an appearance of bias of being Zionists.
Schabas then goes on to defend the UNHRC's pattern of anti-Israel bias by claiming, even more bizarrely, that even though more than half of UNHRC resolutions are against Israel, that the commission actually spends less than 1/193 of its time on Israel. (13:40)
He is lying. As UN Watch notes:
The Council’s fixation with Israel is not limited to resolutions. Israel is the only country listed on the Council’s permanent agenda (Item 7). Moreover, Israel is the only country subjected to an investigatory mandate that examines the actions of only one side, presumes those actions to be violations, and which is not subject to regular review.Finally, Schabas responded to the report by international generals and politicians who said Israel was not guilty of war crimes by purposefully misusing the word "intent" from its legal meaning in the Geneva Conventions when determining if an action by a military commander is proportional and if that commander employs the principle of distinction.
Schabas knows the laws of war well, and his misuse of that term here shows that he was never suited to judge Israel of anything.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
- Wednesday, July 08, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
- Amnesty, Gaza Platform
Amnesty International created a publicity film for its newly released"Gaza Platform" which I have proven uses inaccurate data meant to bash Israel. under the pretense of being noble.
The film includes this section that is a complete, provable lie.
:
Watching that video you would think that there was only one minute and nine seconds for the family to flee the house. Amnesty put up a timer and everything! It must be true! There's no way that a family can escape in such a short amount of time; we must have witnessed their deaths.
But if you look at the original video itself things aren't quite so clear. Look at the smoke on the side of the house and listen to the background noises - there is a clear edit at 1:16. (It is more obvious at fullscreen.)
The edit proves that there was more time than 1:09 shown in the Amnesty timer. Making this video a lie.
How much was edited out?
From The Independent, July 13, 2014:
A video has emerged showing the extraordinary “knock on the roof” technique used by the Israeli military to warn Palestinian civilians of an impending missile strike.The 15-minute gap in the video was also reported by the New York Daily News, The Daily Mail and CNN.
The footage was uploaded to YouTube yesterday by the Gaza-based Watania news agency, and shows from extremely close quarters a small missile striking the roof of a house across the street.
According to the caption, around 15 minutes later – though most of this time has been edited out of the final clip itself – two fully-armed missiles from an F16 jet strike one after the other, blasting the front of the house away and sending a cloud of debris and rubble into the air.
When the dust settles, the full extent of the damage is slowly revealed, with only the exposed back half of the home still standing.
The Watania agency reported that the home in this case belonged to Samir Nofal, who was able to get out in time along with his family and neighbours.
(Watania's description, however, says that Israel called the homeowner first, waited 15 minutes for the "roof knock," and the larger bomb was 5 minutes later after the family was safely out of the house. Only The Telegraph got it right, showing how lazy reporters are in copying others' stories. )
Perhaps, you might say, this is an innocent mistake. Somehow Amnesty saw this video without the explanation that was easily available in major news outlets and in the YouTube video that they edited to create their propaganda film.
Perhaps it is possible, but every one of those stories quoted Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International, saying how Amnesty is against the "roof knock" procedure. Amnesty, like any large organization, follows its news coverage closely. They read each of these news stories that emphasized that the video edited out several minutes of inactivity.
The only conclusion is that this little propaganda film was knowingly deceptive. Amnesty knows the truth and chose to create a film that strongly implies that Israel cruelly bombed houses that they knew still had civilians inside scrambling to grab their belongings.
This is a blood libel.
Amnesty's on-screen timer is the exact same kind of deception that the entire Gaza Platform propaganda is. They are overlaying their own spin and lies on top of flawed information and presenting it as if it is more accurate than what had been seen before.
But all that Amnesty has proven is that it has no credibility. To Amnesty, bashing Israel is far more important than little details like truth and accuracy.
The Gaza Platform data also includes in many cases the an insulting term for the IDF - it calls the army the "IOF," or "Israel Occupation forces," a term used up until now exclusively by Arab media and Arab NGOs. Now Amnesty has adopted that derogatory term as its official terminology, further proving that Amnesty is not an unbiased source.
Amnesty has a halo around it as a reliable, major human rights NGO. Any fair observer, looking at only the evidence I have compiled over the past three days, must conclude that it Amnesty is a travesty.
Every day that they refuse to apologize for and correct this consistent pattern of lies, deception and bias is more proof of that very bias. Newspapers issue corrections, but that is beneath Amnesty.
Amnesty is well aware of my posts which have been tweeted to them hundreds of times, and others including myself have emailed them asking for comment, which they have ignored.
To Amnesty, truth is sometimes just an inconvenience that gets in the way of a good story.
Their donors might be interested in knowing this.
If I am wrong in a single one of my accusations, I invite Amnesty to respond,. I promise to print their response in full.
UPDATE: Amnesty replaced the video with another. Details on their new deceptions here.
From Ian:
Michael Lumish: American-Left Politically-Correct Chicken-Shit
Michael Lumish: American-Left Politically-Correct Chicken-Shit
There is a moral disconnect between western-left opposition to racism, since the end of World War II, and its general disdain for the lone, sole Jewish state of Israel."Shunned": A film about Palestinian gays and lesbians in Israel
For most "liberals" or "leftists" or "progressives," depending on how one defines such terms, this disconnect is veiled and, therefore, sometimes difficult to see.
One way to put a spot-light on it, however, is to note the negative attention that Israel receives from the western press versus the degree and quality of attention that it gives to countries like Syria or Iraq or Sudan or Congo or Saudi Arabia or North Korea. The press knows very well that while about two thousand Arabs were killed by Israel in its operation against Hamas in Gaza last summer, that hundreds of thousands of Arabs have been killed, and millions displaced, in Syria within the just the last two years alone.
The number of war dead in Syria, in fact, already far outstrips - by perhaps four-fold - the entire number of dead in the Arab-Israel conflict since 1948, which amounts to about fifty thousand dead, total. About two-thirds Arab and one-third Jewish.
The fact that the western-left, and the universities, and the UN, and the EU, and the Obama administration focus their disdain on Israel and not on, say, Syria, gives away the lie.
The Rebel is proud to present the world online premiere of Shunned, a documentary by Igal Hecht about Palestinian gays and lesbians seeking refuge in Israel.An Unpopular Man
See, in North America, we argue over whether or not bakeries should be compelled to bake gay wedding cakes. In much of the Muslim world, the gay rights issues are different: they debate whether to hang gays, as they do in Iran; or throw them off the tops of buildings, as they do in the new Islamic State.
Shunned shows western liberal audiences — who often condemn Israel, for trumped up "human rights offenses” — that when it comes to basic civil rights, Israel is miles ahead of any other country in the region.
Norman Finkelstein was a rock star of the pro-Palestinian movement. Then he came out against BDS.
Norman Finkelstein is an unpopular man. Norman Finkelstein has always been an unpopular man, but for decades he had a cult following among leftists and supporters of the Palestinian cause. Since coming out in 2012 against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, however, he has alienated his core followers. A few years ago, Finkelstein tells me, he made $40,000 in speaking fees from 80 talks to Palestinian Solidarity groups around North America. “This past year when I went to my accountant, he said, ‘I think there’s a mistake, because there’s only $2,000.” He laughs. “I told him there was no error. He said, ‘What happened?’ I thought to myself: Am I going to explain to him BDS?”
Finkelstein, 62, is wearing a t-shirt and shorts in his Coney Island apartment, where he lives alone. He has just completed a year teaching international law, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and political philosophy at Sakarya University in Turkey. He’s working on a book with the Dutch-Palestinian scholar Mouin Rabbani on how to solve the conflict. It includes a chapter on BDS, a movement to divest from Israel over its treatment of Palestinians that began a decade ago, on July 9, 2005. But he hates traveling and is angry that he can’t find a teaching job in North America or Europe. “There was a lot of resentment on my part that with a dozen universities within walking distance, I had to board an 18-hour flight to Turkey once a month,” he says.
- Wednesday, July 08, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
- unesco
Back in October 2012, Fox News reported:
Because the Saudis are not only adding input into the process - they are creating it.
From UNESCO:
I need not point out the irony of an initiative to teach tolerance of other religions coming from a country where the public observance of any religion besides Islam is illegal.
It's been a long time since I looked at the topic, but I have some old posts about what Muslim leaders often mean when they talk about "dialogue:" they mean that others should listen to what Muslims have to say, but not the other way around.
The UN agency that promotes education wants a say in how future textbooks are written, and Saudi Arabia -- a nation whose own school books have been criticized for promoting hatred of Christians and Jews -- is helping to bankroll the effort.Well, those critics underestimated the issue.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is currently working with member states to revise its strategy for the publication of textbooks and learning materials. According to UNESCO's website, experts from 21 countries met in Paris last month at a meeting financed by a $29,000 Saudi donation and focused in part on "ways to ensure that content aimed at students systematically reflects cultural and religious diversity, and avoids gender stereotypes."
Then, last week, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah cut a $20 million check to UNESCO's emergency fund.
Critics warn that the funding will come at a price, and predict the Saudis will want input into what goes into rewritten textbooks.
Because the Saudis are not only adding input into the process - they are creating it.
From UNESCO:
UNESCO and the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID) convened education experts to test a tool to assist educators in writing textbooks which are free of stereotypes and prejudices about culture, religion and gender. The tool is needed to assist in curriculum development worldwide as well as to assess current textbooks in circulation or develop new ones. It will eventually be used to communicate curriculum recommendations to textbook authors, in both public and private sectors. KAICIID and UNESCO organized the workshop to test the tool in Vienna, Austria, from 1-3 July 2015.The KAICIID has already released a similar toolkit for journalists to report on "religions" (meaning, Islam) more to the liking of the Saudi royal family. This toolkit seems to be a project of the Saudis, rubber stamped by UNESCO and some handpicked "independent" educators.
The importance of textbooks in influencing societies cannot be emphasised enough. As Noro Andriamiseza from UNESCO explained: “a curriculum consists of more than textbooks, but textbooks are an important part of a curriculum, the most visible part”. Textbooks can support diversity and coexistence, but when they include prejudices, they can divide societies. The workshop aimed to gain feedback and recommendations to further improve the tool prior to its publication.
The workshop is part of the Memorandum of Understanding between the King Abdulaziz Center for National Dialogue and UNESCO, that established the “Abdullah bin Abdulaziz International Programme for a Culture of Peace and Dialogue” and builds on outcomes from the UNESCO Forum on Global Citizenship Education.
KAICIID’s educational programme includes the Image of the Other Programme that focuses on building accurate representation of religious and cultural diversity through interreligious and intercultural education. The programme supports the exchange of ideas and approaches, serving as a platform for public outreach, sharing best practices, ideas and materials trans-regionally.
It also includes the KAICIID Policy Network (KPN), a platform for experts and governmental focal points to discuss interreligious and intercultural education in formal and non-formal education. The focus includes interreligious education, curriculum development and evaluation tools, teacher training and new e-learning resources.
I need not point out the irony of an initiative to teach tolerance of other religions coming from a country where the public observance of any religion besides Islam is illegal.
It's been a long time since I looked at the topic, but I have some old posts about what Muslim leaders often mean when they talk about "dialogue:" they mean that others should listen to what Muslims have to say, but not the other way around.
- Wednesday, July 08, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
Vienna, July 8 - A spokesman for the Austrian capital's prostitution industry today petitioned the parties involved in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program to keep the talks going past the latest deadline.
After a framework agreement was signed in May, the US-led powers seeking an agreement over inspections, uranium enrichment, economic sanctions, and other difficult areas of disagreement with the Islamic Republic have tried repeatedly to reach a final accord, resetting the deadline for an agreement several times, but such a goal has proved elusive. In the meantime, the presence of Iran's negotiating team in Vienna has coincided with booming business for the city's brothels, leading an industry group to seek yet another extension of the talks so that the period of prostitutional prosperity continues.
Hans Jobbs, of the Wien House Of Romantic Escapades (WHORE), told reporters that the 14 establishments, 54 pimps, and 116 independent prostitutes for whom he represents agree unanimously that in the absence of a final agreement the negotiating parties must persist, and remain in Vienna as long as possible to ensure a comprehensive and realistic accord.
"Vienna's sex workers and establishments wish to remind the negotiating teams of the city's lush offerings, and to make the esteemed representatives of those governments realize there is no reason to rush things," he said. "The members of WHORE would be more than willing to spend time with the various negotiating staffs to help them gain familiarity with those offerings, and help persuade them of the benefits of another deadline extension."
Jobbs gave special encouragement to the Iranian negotiating staff, praising them for their willingness to engage in long, hard sessions. "It takes stamina, real endurance, to engage in these activities day after day, night after night," he said, "and we would hate for this endeavor just flop."
If an agreement is in fact reached by July 10, Vienna's prostitutes hopes Iran's negotiators stick around for some time. "They work hard - always getting busy," said WHORE associate Rectl Lube. "The Iranian team deserve some time off from all that back-and-forth in the negotiating room - perhaps [Iranian Foreign Minister] Zarif has to go back to Tehran to report on the deal, and confirm that his staff has taken care of business, but that doesn't mean the rest of the delegation to the talks has to pull out so quickly."
She expressed regret that the US team had only brought a small contingent of Secret Service personnel.
From Ian:
JPost Editorial: 7/7 and Protective Edge
JPost Editorial: 7/7 and Protective Edge
Just one day after Israelis gathered on Jerusalem’s Mount Herzl Military Cemetery to mark a year since Operation Protective Edge, Britons held their own memorial service in London on Tuesday to commemorate the 10-year anniversary of a series of terrorist attacks on London’s Tube and bus networks.France Drops Pro-Palestinian UN Resolution
These two seemingly arbitrary dates help to illustrate the common threat Israel and other Western states such as Britain face today as they come under attack by radical Islamists. France, Australia, Canada and Belgium have all seen acts of extreme violence that were directly or indirectly inspired by the ideology and aims of a violently reactionary stream of Islam.
A cult of death, a racist hatred of Jews, Hindus, Christians and “unbelievers” and the desire to restore a long-vanished, despotic empire ruled by a medieval Muslim jurisprudence are the common features of the groups that carry out these attacks. In this sense, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are no different than Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra or other al-Qaida-affiliated organizations in the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere.
It is common for the news media, foreign political leaders and other shapers of world opinion to attempt to “contextualize” the terrorist attacks directed at Israelis by Islamist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. When Palestinians target civilians in driveby shootings or ambushes and when they fire rockets and mortar shells at residents of the South, the aggression is framed within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
France is back-pedaling from a decision to submit a resolution to the United Nations Security Council forcing Israel to renew negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.Released Clinton e-mail reignites question whether Obama reneged on Bush settlement commitments
PA foreign minister Fiyad al-Maliki told Voice of Palestine radio on Tuesday that France was instead advancing a suggestion to form a negotiations support committee.
The move follows a visit to Israel in early June, during which French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius urged the resumption of final status talks between Israel and the PA.
Netanyahu warned in remarks prior to his meeting with Fabius that the international community’s ideas for peace with the Palestinian Authority ignore the security needs of Israel.
Fabius subsequently discussed the issue in depth with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and a host of other top government officials.
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had already rejected out of hand the most recent French proposal for a resolution in the UN Security Council giving both sides 18 months to reach an agreement. The reason: Under the French resolution, the PA would be required to recognize Israel as a “Jewish” state.
Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice told her successor Hillary Clinton there was no agreement between Israel and the US regarding where settlement construction was permitted, according to an email made public by the State Department last week.
Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake reported Monday that the email, part of the disclosure of Clinton’s personal emails stored on a private server, was dated June 7, 2009, and sent by Clinton to two aides.
The subject line of the email was “settlements,” and it read, “Condi Rice called to tell me I was on strong ground, saying what I did about there being no agreement between the Bush admin[istration] and Israel.”
Whether the Bush administration reached informal agreements with the Sharon government that it could build inside the construction lines of established settlements has long been a point of contention.
The issue was thrust into the headlines in 2009 because of the Obama administration’s demand for a complete settlement freeze and Israel’s counter claim that by making this demand the Obama administration essentially was reneging on commitments given to Israel under the previous administration.
Former ambassador Michael Oren, in his recent book, Ally: My Journey Across the American- Israeli Divide, said the Obama administration did walk back commitments made by the Bush administration and that this marked the “first time in the history of the US-Israel alliance” that the White House “denied the validity of a previous presidential commitment.”
- Wednesday, July 08, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
- unesco
JPost reports:
Besides what is mentioned in the article, it includes this antisemitic paragraph 8:
As I have documented countless times, Jews who visit the Temple Mount are uniformly quiet, respectful and peaceful. They are greeted by the Muslims there with barrages of insults, intimidation and physical abuse. In years of looking through Muslim websites, I have not seen a single instance of a single religious Jew on the Temple Mount doing anything that was disrespectful to the holy site.
Jews who want to worship on their holiest site are expelled. Muslims who want to celebrate terror attacks are welcomed.
UNESCO, by explicitly condemning the Jewish right to worship or even visit the Temple Mount, is pushing an explicitly antisemitic agenda.
Oh, and this paragraph goes against international law.
As bad as that is, there is something even more outrageous than UNESCO's explicit antisemitism.
The real outrage is that there was no outrage. Other nations voted for this resolution without blinking. A resolution that calls all Jews who want to peacefully visit their most sacred site "extremists" doesn't raise any eyebrows. A resolution that insists that Jews have no religious rights is passed without the least bit of controversy. Diplomats who are supposed to be attuned to bigotry are voting for anti-Jewish bigotry.
That is the outrage.
UPDATE: Here is what it is like for a Jew to walk on the Temple Mount, today. Who are the extremists? Who is practicing abuse of a holy spot? Who is violating its sanctity? Who is inflaming tension? (h/t Bob Knot)
Israel slammed the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on Tuesday for adopting a “completely one-sided resolution” on the Old City of Jerusalem that “deliberately ignores the historical connection between the Jewish people and their ancient capital.”The resolution itself should be enough to discredit UNESCO as a serious institution.
The resolution, adopted by the World Heritage Committee meeting in Bonn, Germany, takes Israel to task for – among other grievances – the following allegations: engaging in “illegal excavations” in the Old City; causing damage to structures on the Temple Mount; impeding restoration work on the Temple Mount; and damaging the “visual integrity” of the Old City with the Jerusalem light rail.
It also deplored various Israeli projects in and around the Old City and the Western Wall Plaza, which it referred to as the “Buraq Plaza.”
Foreign Ministry director- general Dore Gold issued a statement saying that not only does the resolution gloss over any Jewish connection to Jerusalem, it also fails to acknowledge Christianity’s ties to Jerusalem and refers to the Temple Mount area only as a “Muslim holy site of worship.”
Besides what is mentioned in the article, it includes this antisemitic paragraph 8:
The World Heritage Committee...Further regrets Israeli extremist groups' continuous incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound and urges Israel to take necessary measures to prevent such provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound and inflame tension on the ground;
As I have documented countless times, Jews who visit the Temple Mount are uniformly quiet, respectful and peaceful. They are greeted by the Muslims there with barrages of insults, intimidation and physical abuse. In years of looking through Muslim websites, I have not seen a single instance of a single religious Jew on the Temple Mount doing anything that was disrespectful to the holy site.
Jews who want to worship on their holiest site are expelled. Muslims who want to celebrate terror attacks are welcomed.
UNESCO, by explicitly condemning the Jewish right to worship or even visit the Temple Mount, is pushing an explicitly antisemitic agenda.
Oh, and this paragraph goes against international law.
As bad as that is, there is something even more outrageous than UNESCO's explicit antisemitism.
The real outrage is that there was no outrage. Other nations voted for this resolution without blinking. A resolution that calls all Jews who want to peacefully visit their most sacred site "extremists" doesn't raise any eyebrows. A resolution that insists that Jews have no religious rights is passed without the least bit of controversy. Diplomats who are supposed to be attuned to bigotry are voting for anti-Jewish bigotry.
That is the outrage.
UPDATE: Here is what it is like for a Jew to walk on the Temple Mount, today. Who are the extremists? Who is practicing abuse of a holy spot? Who is violating its sanctity? Who is inflaming tension? (h/t Bob Knot)
- Wednesday, July 08, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
From UN's IRIN news agency:
But that idea is not tenable, according to UNRWA's apologists:
The implication is that Jordanian citizens with Palestinian ancestry are less deserving of services from their own country than real refugees from neighboring countries. This proves how endemic Jordan's discrimination against Palestinians is, and how accepted this discrimination is to the rest of the world. No one is insisting that Jordan treat its Palestinian citizens equally.
Isn't that apartheid?
Jordanian citizens aren't clamoring to become citizens of "Palestine." But the Arab world's bigotry against Palestinians, and UNRWA's own core education curriculum that discourages Palestinian integration into the countries that they have lived for over 60 years and instead insists on the destruction of Israel via this false "right of return," is what is ultimately killing UNRWA. The numbers of fake "refugees" continues to grow and keeping them in that artificial status is what is killing UNRWA.
The signs have been there for years. The refusal to deal with the core problem of UNRWA's mandate that is designed to exacerbate the "refugee" issue is the very issue that will destroy UNRWA, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Facing what its commissioner-general Pierre Krähenbühl called its “most serious financial crisis ever,” this week the UN agency for Palestinian refugees announced it would let go around 100 foreign employees on short-term contracts, roughly half of all its international employees.The obvious solution, which I have mentioned a number of times, is to align UNRWA's definition of "refugee" with that of the rest of the world. At the very least, no Jordanian citizen should be considered a refugee, since being a refugee and a citizen of a state is an oxymoron.No citizen of the Palestinian Authority - someone living in their own supposed homeland - should be considered a "refugee." (For now, I'm not going to talk about defining descendants of refugees as refugees themselves.)
Dealing with emergencies in Syria and Gaza and having lost $25 million to currency exchange fluctuations overnight, UNRWA is $101 million in debt and faces a $330 million shortfall in its $680 million annual budget.
Financial woes have plagued the agency, which is responsible for the medical care, education, and welfare of registered Palestinian refugees, since it was formed in 1950 as a temporary measure, but this crisis is the worst to date.
What, if anything, can be done to fix the frequently broke agency?
The most straightforward approach might appear to be to search for additional sources of funding.
...But, barring a major Gulf splurge, any new funding is unlikely to be sufficient.
[T]he next target for cuts is one of the agency’s core services: education.
UNRWA runs more than 700 schools in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon. They are the only option for many Palestinians, but take up 60 percent of UNRWA’s regular budget.
But that idea is not tenable, according to UNRWA's apologists:
There are even more radical solutions, which would likely involve a renegotiation of UNRWA’s mandate.Of course, Jordan could have integrated its Palestinian population many years before it accepted Iraqi and Syrian refugees.
Among them has been phasing out services to the nearly two million Palestinian refugees who have become citizens of Jordan since 1948. This proposal was floated by James G. Lindsay, UNRWA general counsel from 2002-2007, in his 2009 report for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy - “Fixing UNRWA.”
Already hosting refugees from Iraq and Syria, it would place a heavy burden on Jordananian hospitals and schools. Lindsay, however, proposes this could be balanced with targeted foreign aid.
There are reasons to doubt such a solution is viable. For many Palestinians, the option is politically untenable. Many consider registration and affiliation with UNRWA as symbolic placeholder for the “right to return.” Likewise, while donor countries and Israel may have their disagreements with UNRWA, many see it as a stabilizing force and would probably object to a withdrawal from Jordan. As an important ally of Israel and the west that is facing its own battle with Islamic radicalisation, Jordan’s objections would likely be heard. For his part, [UNRWA apologist Rex] Brynen calls the Jordan option “politically impossible.”
The implication is that Jordanian citizens with Palestinian ancestry are less deserving of services from their own country than real refugees from neighboring countries. This proves how endemic Jordan's discrimination against Palestinians is, and how accepted this discrimination is to the rest of the world. No one is insisting that Jordan treat its Palestinian citizens equally.
Isn't that apartheid?
Jordanian citizens aren't clamoring to become citizens of "Palestine." But the Arab world's bigotry against Palestinians, and UNRWA's own core education curriculum that discourages Palestinian integration into the countries that they have lived for over 60 years and instead insists on the destruction of Israel via this false "right of return," is what is ultimately killing UNRWA. The numbers of fake "refugees" continues to grow and keeping them in that artificial status is what is killing UNRWA.
The signs have been there for years. The refusal to deal with the core problem of UNRWA's mandate that is designed to exacerbate the "refugee" issue is the very issue that will destroy UNRWA, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
- Wednesday, July 08, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
- Amnesty, Gaza Platform
Yesterday I reported that Amnesty International is releasing today an online application, The Gaza Platform, to do graphical analysis on Israeli attacks in Gaza.
And that Amnesty's partners in gathering data were, to be blunt, liars.
The official release of the Gaza Platform is today, with a free event at Amnesty UK this evening.
Perhaps no example shows how unreliable this tools isi than the incident recorded by the tool here:
Only one problem: every victim was a terrorist..
Here is a martyr poster for every victim.
According to this poster, every single one of these people were members of the Abu Rish Brigades. Including the 15-year old boy and 17-year old boy.
What about the 13-year old Ibrahim Jamal Nasser? Well, he wasn't really 13:
I reported on all of these last August. But Amnesty apparently spent much more time and money to create an application to bash Israel than to Google the names of the "civilians" - a simple exercise that would prove that the Al Mezan Center and PCHR are completely unreliable when they claim that dead Gazans are civilians.
The identification of victims as civilians is the key for Amnesty's stated use of this tool as a means to prove that Israel engaged in war crimes. As I have just again proven, the application is based on completely unreliable data where the number of civilians and children were inflated by these "human rights organizations" for their own political purposes.
Every reporter that parrots Amnesty's press release should be emailed and tweeted with this post as well as my post from yesterday to show Amnesty's true colors.
There are scores of people I documented as being members of terror groups that PCHR and Al Mezan called "civilian." The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center has done a much more rigorous job documenting how many of these supposed civilians were really members of terror groups.
Amnesty ignores any evidence that contradicts its pre-determined verdict. Amnesty's release of the Gaza Platform is proof that Amnesty's goal is pure anti-Israel propaganda, and truth is the victim.
And that Amnesty's partners in gathering data were, to be blunt, liars.
The official release of the Gaza Platform is today, with a free event at Amnesty UK this evening.
Perhaps no example shows how unreliable this tools isi than the incident recorded by the tool here:
At around 1:50 am on Saturday, 19 July 2014, Israeli warplanes targeted a group of civilians sitting in front of their houses in Al Ladadwa Street in Khan Younis city. Nine people, including three children, were killed and another two were moderately injured. Three of those who were killed were brothers; Mohammed Reda Salhiyya, 22; Mustafa Reda Salhiyya, and 21, and Wasseem Reda Salhiyya, 15. Another two brotherswere killed: Yahya Al Surry, 20, and his brother Mohammed, 17. The other four were residents of the area and were identified as: Mohammed Mostafa Salhiyya, 32; Ibrahim Jamal Nasser, 13; MohammedAwad Nasser, 25, and Rushdy Nasser, 25.PCHR has the same description of victims as civilians with similar ages within the application.
SOURCE:
Al Mezan
Only one problem: every victim was a terrorist..
Here is a martyr poster for every victim.
According to this poster, every single one of these people were members of the Abu Rish Brigades. Including the 15-year old boy and 17-year old boy.
What about the 13-year old Ibrahim Jamal Nasser? Well, he wasn't really 13:
I reported on all of these last August. But Amnesty apparently spent much more time and money to create an application to bash Israel than to Google the names of the "civilians" - a simple exercise that would prove that the Al Mezan Center and PCHR are completely unreliable when they claim that dead Gazans are civilians.
The identification of victims as civilians is the key for Amnesty's stated use of this tool as a means to prove that Israel engaged in war crimes. As I have just again proven, the application is based on completely unreliable data where the number of civilians and children were inflated by these "human rights organizations" for their own political purposes.
Every reporter that parrots Amnesty's press release should be emailed and tweeted with this post as well as my post from yesterday to show Amnesty's true colors.
There are scores of people I documented as being members of terror groups that PCHR and Al Mezan called "civilian." The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center has done a much more rigorous job documenting how many of these supposed civilians were really members of terror groups.
Amnesty ignores any evidence that contradicts its pre-determined verdict. Amnesty's release of the Gaza Platform is proof that Amnesty's goal is pure anti-Israel propaganda, and truth is the victim.
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
- Tuesday, July 07, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
If Iran is distributing food in Gaza, it must mean that thsy have successfully broken the siege! I wonder why they didn't detail the adventures that they must have gone through to evade the evil Israelis hell-bent on blockading Gaza from all humanitarian needs.
It couldn't be as easy as just shipping them through Israel to the the Kerem Shalom crossing, could it?
The report makes it clear that the purpose of the Imam Khomeini Foundation is political, not charitable.
(h/t B.)
It couldn't be as easy as just shipping them through Israel to the the Kerem Shalom crossing, could it?
The report makes it clear that the purpose of the Imam Khomeini Foundation is political, not charitable.
(h/t B.)
From Ian:
EU official who negotiated on UN Gaza resolution is married to UN inquiry team member
EU official who negotiated on UN Gaza resolution is married to UN inquiry team member
A European Union official involved in negotiating on behalf of the EU over the text of Friday’s UN Human Rights Council resolution that condemned Israel for last summer’s Gaza War is married to a staff member of the UNHRC commission that investigated the war.9 Successful Anti-Academic BDS Strategies to Defeat Academic BDS
The link between EU policy officer Jérôme Bellion-Jourdan, who was tasked with reviewing the Gaza war report and helping advise EU representatives on how to vote on it, and McGowan Davis Commission staffer Sara Hamood was known to the EU but not made public.
David Harris, the head of the American Jewish Committee, protested what he called a “conflict of interest.” Harris told The Times of Israel on Monday that he took particular exception to the failure of the EU to disclose the marital connection between one of its key officials involved in dealing with the UNHRC report and a UNHRC staffer who worked for the commission.
Only on Tuesday, in response to a Times of Israel question, did the EU publicly acknowledge the connection for the first time. It denied there was a conflict of interest. (h/t Yenta Press)
In recent weeks and months, I have watched academics, students, major donors and Israel advocacy organization leaders in Israel and in the Diaspora try to counter the growing menace of both overt and silent academic boycotts. Several well meaning, but misguided, efforts are apparent to me, as one who had significant success in helping Israeli scholars and academic institutions thwart academic boycotts from Europe, Canada, South Africa and elsewhere the mid-2000s, long before American Jewish leaders believed there was a crisis.Clinton issues missives against Israel boycott movement
I would like to share some successful strategies based on successes of the past, prior to BDS reaching America’s shores, to the relative newcomers to this struggle, since this has been an ongoing international struggle since 2003 when a UK faculty union first started boycott campaigns against targeted Israeli universities. My suggestions fly in the face of the way most big donors and mainline Jewish groups operate, but these are ways which have deflated academic BDS before and could once again be successful.
1) Develop anti-academic BDS strategies around academic principles and not ideological pro-Israel strategies. There is precedent for this from such prestigious groups as the American Association of University Professors whose anti-academic boycott position is articulate and clear as well as the statement crafted by Alan Dershowitz, myself, Nobel Laureates Steven Weinberger and Roger Kornberg and a committee of distinguished academics serving the now-defunct, but very successful, SPME BDS Task Force which was signed by 44 Nobel Laureates.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton expressed concern regarding efforts to boycott Israel in letters to Jewish leaders, calling for legislative action to support the Jewish state.Hillary: George Soros is NO Friend of Israel
Writing to Israeli tycoon Haim Saban and Jewish communal leader Malcolm Hoenlein, Clinton asked for their help in devising a plan to counter the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
“I am seeking your advice on how we can work together […] to reverse this trend with information and advocacy,” the former secretary of state wrote in identical letters last week.
Clinton said she was concerned by attempts to compare Israeli policies to South Africa’s apartheid regime, which was successfully boycotted by the world community in the 1980s in a campaign seen as an inspiration for Israel boycott advocates.
“Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world — especially in Europe — we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people,” she wrote.
While Hillary Clinton is claiming that she will be better for Israel than President Obama was, its noteworthy that George Soros, the world’s most dangerous billionaire donated $1 Million this week to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC dedicated to supporting Hillary Clinton in her Presidential bid. Soros is someone who has long supported causes which are harmful to the State of Israel.
Soros is a prominent donor to J Street, and made a speech in front of the Jewish Funders Network where he said “European anti-Semitism is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States.” He has said that “America is the gravest threat to world freedom” and generally stands against many Western interests.
Let’s review further what George Soros did during World War II which has sparked controversy, courtesy of an interview on ‘60 Minutes’
Former United States Senator Joe Lieberman has said that Soros’s views on America are “so negative, so critical, and so often anti-American.” Simply, this man who is a major funder of Hillary is no friend of Israel. Hillary must dis-associate from the world’s most dangerous billionaire.
- Tuesday, July 07, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
The NYT reports that more civilians have now been killed in Yemen this year than were killed last year in Gaza, even according to the UN's inflated Gaza figures:
Yet Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, which flatly and repeatedly declared Israel's actions in Gaza last year to be violations of the laws of war, are still reluctant to say the same about Saudi Arabia.
I've previously shown comparisons of how HRW described Israel in much harsher and categorical terms when reporting on airstrikes then they did for Saudi Arabia. But even this past week, HRW and Amnesty continued to put caveats around calling Saudi actions illegal.
HRW:
In both Yemen and Gaza, these NGOs do not have access to information from the army commanders have, and that information si essential to knowing whether there were violations of the laws of armed conflict. When Amnesty and HRW flatly declare Israel violated those laws, they are lying. But when Saudi Arabia acts with less precision, less care and more lethality, suddenly these organizations are sticklers for accuracy.
It really is a sickening double standard.
(h/t Yoel)
Yet Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, which flatly and repeatedly declared Israel's actions in Gaza last year to be violations of the laws of war, are still reluctant to say the same about Saudi Arabia.
I've previously shown comparisons of how HRW described Israel in much harsher and categorical terms when reporting on airstrikes then they did for Saudi Arabia. But even this past week, HRW and Amnesty continued to put caveats around calling Saudi actions illegal.
HRW:
While many coalition airstrikes were directed at legitimate military targets in the city, Human Rights Watch identified several attacks that appeared to violate international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war, and resulted in numerous civilian deaths and injuries.Amnesty:
Coalition attacks struck at least six residential houses not being used for military purposes. One attack killed 27 members of a single family, including 17 children. The airstrikes also hit at least five markets for which there was no evidence of military activity. Aerial attacks on an empty school and a crowded petrol station appear also to have violated the laws of war.
These eight cases investigated by Amnesty International must be independently and impartially investigated as possible disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks. The findings of any investigation must be made public, and those suspected of responsibility for serious violations of the laws of war must be brought to justice in fair trials.On the other hand, Amnesty declared after only a couple of weeks of the Gaza war that Israel was guilty of "serious violations of international humanitarian law [and] serious human rights abuses" as it called on the US and other countries to suspend all shipments of weapons to Israel.
In both Yemen and Gaza, these NGOs do not have access to information from the army commanders have, and that information si essential to knowing whether there were violations of the laws of armed conflict. When Amnesty and HRW flatly declare Israel violated those laws, they are lying. But when Saudi Arabia acts with less precision, less care and more lethality, suddenly these organizations are sticklers for accuracy.
It really is a sickening double standard.
(h/t Yoel)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)