They've been doing so since their inception, and the occupation is brutal.

if you want to stop terrorism, offer them good jobs instead, good jobs are the best terror-fighting tool ever.

in fact I've seen that opinion here on DU too

In the US juveniles accused of a crime are routinely handcuffed, strip searched and held for a time without contact from anyone. Depending on other factors they could be isolated for weeks. They don't have a specific right to a lawyer but the parents do.

For kids in the system who were adjudicated delinquent (meaning they are now in the state system) they are transported off site with handcuffs, leg shackles and belly chain, this is SOP. They may also be strip searched twice.

In most Australian states, a juvenile (anyone under the age of seventeen) cannot be dealt with in an adult court. Usually they are only remanded for very serious offences. The Juvenile Justice Act in the state that I live (Qld) states that detention for any juvenile is considered a last resort.

Juveniles are also entitled to legal aid as of right for any criminal proceeding. Any conviction on their juvenile record will also be wiped once they turn the age of seventeen.

Unless there are specific reasons for doing so it would be very unusual for a juvenile to appear in court handcuffed, even if they are on remand. It would be considered scandalous if they were shackled in the way in which you describe.

Wasn't always that way, but it sure as hell is now.

(you know, the quiz panel show with Stephen Fry as host, download it or something)

well worth a watch:-

I knew about the military stuff but not consumer goods

...the fraudulent and sanctimonious efforts of politicians, ngo's, and some charities.

Personally, I stop reading anti-Israel reports once their phony agendas are revealed.

As to the author not reading the report, so what? All the author really needed to know is that it was based primarily on contrived politically compromised work that couldn't be verified. Typical par for the course, same old song and dance that can be safely ignored.

all 4 pages of the SCOTUS decision on healthcare, I'll go with that

Go with the gut, right?

Tell me Shira, and tell me true. Is Amnesty International supposed to take arms against the Assad regime? Because that's what the person who is providing your argument is saying. How DARE those charities and NGO's not be HALTING SYRIA!? How DARE they not have cured AIDS in the C.A.R.!? Until they solve every other problem the author demands, they will NEVER be able to report on how Israel abuses its prisoners!

I dismissed your article because the guy in it is showing excessively bad logic, using diversionary arguments ("GASP! They didn't talk about how evil Hamas was, or Iran, in their report about Israeli prisons!&quot and he admittedly says he has no idea what is actually IN the fucking report.

You - and the guy who you're using to provide 100% of "your" opinion - are dismissing the report because it might say something less-than-fawning about Israel.

If you actually gave a shit about Israel - which like most "pro-Israeli" Americans, I'm certain you absolutely do not - I would think you would be concerned about that beloved country's treatment of prisoners. But, proving my point, you clearly do not. Not even enough to take a look at a possibly relevant report. Instead you read some Michelle Malkin knockoff article, and go no further.

It reminds me of how right-wingers will scream and kick and rage about how things are "Anti-American" or "Blame America First!" - without ever considering fact. They just see something critical and immediately start howling. it's dumb as hell when they do it, and you don't make it look any smarter, I'm afraid.

....delegitimization and demonization campaign going on by major NGO's against Israel. It's why I basically ignore anything they claim. I don't trust them one bit when it comes to anything related to the Israel/Arab conflict.

The best proof of their irrational hostility vs. Israel is the discredited Goldstone Report. Its main conclusion was retracted by none other than Richard Goldstone himself. The Report is yet another in a long line of UNHRC multi-million dollar efforts now in the dustbin of history.

Goldstone's charges are lifted entirely from NGO's like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. THEY led him to conclude in his now discredited report that Israel targeted civilians as a matter of policy. Once Goldstone retracted, that rendered all THEIR work as crap. They clumsily tried to cover their tracks...

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?operation=print&id=3353
http://www.volokh.com/2011/04/06/human-rights-watch-lies-re-goldstone-retraction/

Only the willfully blind would consider Amnesty and HRW credible WRT Israel. Like I wrote before in my previous post, these are entirely political attacks vs. Israel. No one should take them seriously.

======

Now WRT this report about children in military custody, Richard Millett was correct to stop reading once he saw that these "lawyers" weren't challenging the "illegality" of Israel's settlements. FTR, Israel's settlements are not illegal. An unwise move? Wrong? Mean spirited? Zealoted? Believe what you wish, but they're not illegal. A group of lawyers should know that. There's no point reading any further as this latest attack on Israel is entirely political and definitely not based on International Law...

Especially given that your post is so chock full of appeal to ridicule fallacies.

Also, you state that with regard to Israel, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are completely without credibility; are you saying that they are credible in other areas?

Really?

Are you certain that their criticisms of Syria aren't just part of an agenda of demonization and delegimization against Syria, Shira? I mean it's so obvious. You'd have to be willfully blind to not see how much Amnesty has a huge hard-on for talking shit about Syria. It's practically pathological, and a clear sign of the inherent anti-Arab sentiment not just of these NGO's, but also every other nation in the world.

Clearly, when Amnesty talks about human rights violations in China, they're just lashing out as a bunch of sinophobes, trying hard to empower China's enemies at the expense of the peace-loving Chinese people. All criticism against China is purely political, and no one should take them seriously. You shouldn't trust them one bit when it comes to anything related to China.

And how about those assholes in the ACLU, Shira? These anti-American wastes of meat, always talking about "voter suppression" and "rights violations" and "civil liberties in question." They just hate America so much that everything htye say is suspect. you'd have to be seriously delusional to ever believe ANYTHING said by them about the United States. There are absolutely no problems like that in America, it's all legal, and a group of lawyers should know that. You're out of your mind if you can take the ACLU seriously, and doing so is a clear sign of antiamericanism.

...See how this works? I could probably just go down the list, but there's roughly 300 nations in the world (don't talk about "legitimacy" unless you want to hear about Transdniestria, by the way) and I just don't have time. I'm sure for each of them, some group or other is pointing out what they're doing wrong, and in every case, someone can holler "YOU JUST HATE US COMPLETELY IRRATIONALLY!" and in lots of cases, they do (for instance, Israel and the three I included here). And in each case, those same countries will accept without much, if any question, the same organizations' statements of wrongdoing at the hands of other nations or groups.

(By the way, ngo-monitor set off just about every anti-spyware program I have. You might want to scan your machine, I dunno if mine are just being weird, or if there's something actually there)

The subject is how these NGO's report on Israel. That's what I'm writing about now. Not Syria, China, etc.

The Goldstone Report was gi-normous news. The UN backed it. It relied almost entirely on HRW and Amnesty reports and accusations. Richard Goldstone then retracted the conclusion (which nuked the report so badly no one talks about it now). Rather than debate Goldstone or question his reversal, HRW and Amnesty backtracked. And they were really clumsy about it.

You don't see it that way, right?

Why?

ps
Are you aware that HRW's founder, Robert Bernstein, has condemned HRW for its anti-Israel hostility? What do you make of that? Here's more on HRW's bias, that they admit...
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/for_hrw_israel_is_low_hanging_fruit_the_new_republic_adds_evidence_of_bias

Great old thread here about Amnesty's admitted bias vs. Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x175318#175339

It's not about human rights. This is political, as I wrote earlier. These NGO's have no credibility when it comes to Israel.

Like I said, ngo-watch made things go wacky.

Do you know WHY the Goldstone report relied heavily on NGO reports? Because Israel flat refused to provide any information for it. Their position was that they would provide an "internal investigation" and release their own findings. I'll admit my own doubts here; I don't trust the local police department to investigate themselves, why would I trust a damned military to do so? Regardless, he had been commissioned to create this report, and so he did, with the information he could gather. Israel, choosing to not divulge a scrap of its own information, really, truly, honestly has no place to whine about the results.

But goodness gracious did they whine. Even before any findings were reported, Goldstone was suddenly a raving Israel-hating antisemite lying motherfucker and the absolute worst human being on the entire planet. He was accused of "collaborating with terrorists." There were death threats against Goldstone, for the first time since 1990, when his investigation into apartheid won him death threats from White Afrikaaner separatists (kind of ironic, that)

In fact for daring to accept the UN's assignment for him, he was nearly barred from attending his grandson's Bar Mitzvah by the South African Zionist Federation. Such class, those Team Israel folks.

Even with that pressure on him, he did not retract his report. He said that if he had had the information which Israel later released, the report would have been different. Well... Duh? He also commended Israel for at least investigating, unlike Hamas, which did jack squat. It's not exactly the massive capitulation you're presenting it as.

Which is why your source links to one of its own articles that keeps right up with the attacks even after supposedly getting what it wanted.

Now, the funny thing is... Israel's own report confirms many of the situations reported by Goldstone;
http://www.hybridstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/GazaUpdateJuly2010.pdf

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Gaza_Operation_Investigations_Second_Update_July_2010.htm (Second source, since I'm sure you probably won't take hybridstates as "credible.&quot

Whether or not these are war crimes would be up to an impartial jury, I would think. But you and I know that's just not going to fucking happen, unless I guess we get some random villagers from the hills of Laos to review evidence and reach a conclusion (which... honestly sounds like it might work ) Goldstone's initial position that they did qualify as war crimes is perhaps due to, you know, Israel flat out refusing to participate in the investigation and thus denying Goldstone some necessary information and perhaps convincing arguments. It's clear that choosing to do so would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

So to recap.

Team Israel - and you are very much included in this group, Shira - responded to the idea of investigating human rights violations on OCL with threats to murder a man, antisemitic attacks, harassment of this man's family, dehumanization of him and his colleagues and sources, a campaign of lies and mis-characterization designed to try to wreck his illustrious and admired career and achievements, a political campaign to bar him from his religious observances, all while Israel was refusing to provide a scrap of information to him that would have, evidently, resulted in a somewhat different report that cast Israel in a better light.

All to the end effect of basically being able to say "Look! Israel is better than Hamas!" which is a really low bar to set for yourself, if you ask me.

....were wrong, weren't they? Mainly that Israel was "guilty" of targeting civilians as a matter of policy. THAT is what the whole report is about. It's what all those NGO reports were about. It wasn't about Israel doing a good job (better than NATO, the US, the UK, etc..) but they could still do better.

If Goldstone was wrong about that, so were the NGO's like HRW and Amnesty.

So, were HRW and Amnesty wrong too? If so, why don't THEY say the same thing as Goldstone; admit they didn't have access to all the facts; admit they were wrong?

My argument is they're very hostile vs. Israel and have zero credibility when they make their sanctimonious condemnations.

First, we have to unravel the tangled mess you're presenting as the basis of your argument. You're sort of jumping all over the place with it, which is a clear sign of someone who's just parroting clusters of talking points given to them by someone else. Your opinion of the two NGO's you're going on about is based on the following;

1) You believe that Amnesty, International and Human rights Watch were the sole sources behind the UN Fact-Finding mission to the Gaza Strip.
2) You believe that Amnesty and HRW thus "fed" Richard Goldstone, Christine Chinkin, Hina Jilani, and Desmond Travers pre-fabricated conclusions.
3) You believe that all the findings and conclusions of the Mission are anti-Israel; that this is what the entire report is "all about."
4) You believe Richard Goldstone said that he was wrong and retracted the report.

From this you conclude that these two organizations are "very hostile" towards Israel, and have "zero credibility."

But here's the facts;

1) Amnesty and HRW were two of Thirty-seven NGO's involved in the fact-finding mission. Also included were twelve diplomatic missions, twenty-one UN and International organizations, four Palestinian domestic authorities, independent investigation, individual testimonies, and two fact-finding trips to Gaza. The Mission also tried to bring the Israelis in to get their input and information, but were rebuffed.

2) Nobody "fed" the four people on the mission anything. There are twenty-five pages worth of conclusions about the situation, pertaining to Israel, Palestine, Hamas, the International community, lots of stuff. Most of the three months of forming the report were consumed by fact-checking, cross-reference, and verification. The result is about as close to a scientific tratise as you're likely to get out of the situation.

3) The report is not "anti-Israel." it reports wrongdoings by the Israeli military, and it also reports wrongdoings by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Though perhaps not by your absolutist standards, it is quite strongly supportive of many of Israel's positions about the war, particularly the claim that it was justified by Hamas' rocket attacks from Gaza. The only way to interpret the report as "anti-Israel" is if you're already of the mindset that Israel can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise "hates Israel."

4) Goldstone has never said "I was wrong," much less tried to retract the mission's report; nor have his three colleagues. In fact to retract it, they would need all four of them to file a complaint asking for it to be retracted from the UN. He has written a WaPo editorial where he says the document would have been different had Israel participated in the fact-finding. As I have pointed out, Israel's government has actually confirmed much of the report's findings; In his WaPo editorial, Goldstone offers little more than the benefit of the doubt in regards to the Israeli government's "fog of war" arguments in their own report. As I pointed out, this is after such charming tactics as death threats, harassment of his family, antisemitism targeting him, and so many other fun, lovely intimidation tactics intended to make him "back down."

The findings were not wrong. The report is not some Israel-hating screed. HRW and Amnesty had a minor place among the many sources referenced and cross-examined in the fact-finding process. Goldstone never retracted, and was the subject of antisemitic attacks by the Team Israel.

I suppose you have your opinion and I'm not very likely to sway it. But I wanted you to know that your "argument" is based off bullshit. At the very least you could thumb through the report yourself, instead of taking MEMRI and CAMERA and Ynet and other oh-so-very objective websites at their word.

Another thing you ought to know; Volokh is sourcing justjournalism. This is a pro-Israel news / lobby group that was based in the UK until it went flat-side-up last year (which is why his link to them takes you to a defunct wordpress login) The board of advisers of Just Journalism were a pretty interesting bunch;
- Denis MacShane, a British MP who rather famously embezzled £125,000 for his garage.
- Robin Shepherd, a frequent contributor to right-wing "think tanks" and owner / publisher of the rightwing "news" site, "The Commentator"
- Douglas Murray, author of "Neoconservativism; Why We Need it"
- Daniel Johnson, editor of the right-wing (and often islamophbic) magazine "Standpoint."
- Alan Johnson, who has urged the UK to abandon its treaties on human rights.
- Nina Rosenwald, whose name just keeps cropping up as a donor and participant in anti-Muslim "strategy" organizations.

I'm sure you were unaware that you were sourcing right-wing garbage, of course. Just thought you might like to know anyway.

Goldstone repudiated the report's central premise. Do you know what it was? I don't think you wish to admit it but here it is:

Every incident raised in that report by Goldstone's team was used in order to make a case that proved the IDF very deliberately - and as a matter of policy - targeted innocent Gazan civilians. That wasn't some minor aspect of the report. It was the main theme throughout the report and its final conclusion.

THAT is what animated all the sanctimonious bigots worldwide who had a field day with what can only be described as a modern day blood libel. They finally had all the proof they needed to demonstrate Israel's malicious intent and to expose the IDF Zionazis for who they were.

It was that exact charge that enraged most of the Jewish world, including some very prominent liberal Jews and organizations - and not just the rightwing...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x295131#295179

Note what those people are upset about. They're upset about Goldstone's claim that Israel targeted, killed, and set out to punish the Gazan population deliberately.

HRW and Amnesty were the main sources for Goldstone's report, not the only ones. Team Goldstone used every one of those 37 NGO's in order to make the case that Israel killed civilians deliberately. Nearly all 37 of those NGO's (with the exception of B'tselem and maybe a few others) make the same false accusation Goldstone repudiated. The one accusation you will find from almost every one of those 37 NGO's is that Israel deliberately massacred civilians or they intentionally targeted/punished innocent Palestinians.

Goldstone repudiated the report's central premise and main conclusion. That central premise and main conclusion can easily be found in nearly every single report on OCL from those 37 NGO's. They went absolutely nuts reporting on Israel's intended malice towards the Palestinian people. NOW, those NGO's (but especially HRW and Amnesty) are in no way challenging Goldstone's retraction. Instead, they are switching the goalposts. They are denying they implied any such thing. They are claiming they never endorsed the report's central theme or main conclusion (even though they never once spoke out against it). Not only do their reports expose their fraud, there was never any indication they had a problem with Goldstone's findings (as though he went too far with his claims). Of course they didn't have a problem and never publicized it! Because that's what THEY alleged as well!

HRW and Amnesty will never admit they falsely charged Israel. They have no credibility.

And the proof? Well that's simple. No one mentions the Goldstone Report anymore at the UN. HRW and Amnesty are done with it. They know the entire report is now shit, even if you can't admit it. That report is in the dustbin of history where it will remain. And it was based primarily on false NGO reports; HRW and Amnesty included.

You want to know why it won't ever be brought up again? It's because Goldstone's retraction invalidated the entire report.

Every incident in the report, you say? And its "final conclusion?" Which final conclusion would that be? Like I said, there's twenty-five pages of conclusions. See, right there, I can tell you really don't know what you're talking about, Shira. I've got the report right here; http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm - and while I admit I haven't plowed through all five-hundred and seventy-five pages of material, I've seen plenty in there condemning Hamas and the Palestinian authorities. Since you've never read any of it (you don't need to after all, you just know, right?) I'm not surprised you persist in arguing otherwise.

As I have pointed out, Israel has confirmed many of the findings of the Gaza report, Shira. For example, Israel did in fact target and mortar a school. For example, Israel did fire missiles into a mosque. For example, Israel did target the Gaza police forces. For example, Israeli forces did shell a UNWRA field office compound. For example, Israeli soldiers did shoot and kill civilians bearing white flags. For example, Israel did use indiscriminate weapons such as flechettes and white phosphorus in civilian areas. For example, Israel did bulldoze a chicken farm. For example, Israel did target a cement factory with air strikes. For example, Israel did destroy the Al-Wadiya Grou's factories (which apparently made "snacks," according to the Israeli report.) For example, the Israelis fired tank shells into a flour factory, destroying it. For example, Israel admits a hell of a lot of houses were destroyed.

Do you think that the IDF is so inept that it just accidentally fired three missiles into a mosque? Was the Benny Hill theme playing when they mortared the school? I think it would have been appropriate music for the chicken farm thing, at least. These were deliberate actions by the IDF; it's either that or you think the Israeli military is run by Jerome Horwitz (Whoooo woop woop woop!) The Israelis admit it was deliberate; the contention is whether it was justified by military necessity. Israel says yes, the UN says no.

All 37 of those NGO's "make the same claim"? Shira... until two posts ago, you didn't even fucking know there were more than two NGO's involved, so don't pretend you have any clue about the other 35. And why the hatred for just them? Where's your hatred for the 21 UN and international organizations, like the World Health Organization? Where's your bile directed to the British UN ambassador in Geneva? Does your salivating rage extend towards B'Tselem and Yesh Gvul and the Mandela Institute?

Now, like I said, I don't expect your opinion to change. I just needed to inform you that your argument is bunk.

Unfortunately, just like other excellent posts on this forum it is destined to disappear into oblivion under a hail of cut-and-post boilerplate posts culled from right-wing blogs. You'll soon get tired of making comprehensive and considered responses, we all do. I think they call it a "fatigue strategy".

On the rest of DU, that's a sweepstakes ticket for a long voyage.

Right/Left simply aren't useful terms anymore, especially WRT then I/P conflict.

For example, almost always and w/o question I see that "pro-Palestinian" in reality means anti-Israel, and in some cases pro-Hamas or pro-PLO. Those who say they're "pro-Palestinian", from left-wingers to right-wingers, really don't give a rat's ass about Palestinians anymore than they do the millions slaughtered in Sudan, the Congo, Syria, etc.

When you say "Hamas Approved media," it very clearly means absolutely any media that does not provide the story you want to hear. Even, it seems, an official report from the government of Israel. And they clearly haven't supported Hamas since at least 1987!

And yeah, actually, left / right still applies. When your source traces back to a neoconservative think tank, you are citing a right-wing source.

Your second comment is interesting. Do you believe that the condition of the Palestinians is comparable to the three examples you give, Shira?

And I really don't think you understand the difference b/w right and left when it comes to the Arab/Israel conflict.

For example, you probably support the following:

Free Gaza Movement
International Solidarity Movement
Palestine Solidarity Movement
BDS
Israel Apartheid Week
Global March to Jerusalem

Right or wrong?

When you link to a site espousing neoconservative twaddle, you're citing a right-wing source. Now, perhaps whatever point you're trying to provide is valid, or at least interesting. But if that's the case, then very possibly you can get it from a source that doesn't lean back and bitch about "the left" at every turn. Seriously, it's DU, just because they let people like me and you into the party doesn't mean there aren't any standards

I've actually never heard of any of those, that I can recall. I've probably seen the names somewhere, but I'm unfamiliar. I'll look into them and get back to you.

Just on the basis of the names though, I'm guessing it's going to be a Judean Peoples Front / People's Front of Judea / Front for the People of Judea farce.

The "Left" that you see being bashed by supporters of Israel is hostile not only to rightwingers or neocons, but also liberals. It's this Stalinist "Left" (not all the left as there's a very decent left too) that lumps both right-wingers and liberals together.

This Stalinist Left is nearly indistinguishable from the Fascist Right. Both are sympathetic to totalitarian movements. Both hate liberals.

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)

If you'd like, I'll answer your true/false questions in return. But you first. You have two choices when responding. True or False.

================

From HRW reports...

...you continue to deflect rather than answer simple T/F questions about HRW and Ken Roth; meaning you know you're beat and you've got nothing.

No sense going on, right?

Yes, Shira. The entire point of a campaign of harassment and intimidation is to "get to" someone and coerce them into giving you what you want.

I did answer your "true / false" questions, Shira. They're right there in post #26. I know they don't give you the answers you wanted, but you're just going to have to accept them.

I want you to answer my question that I posed after answering yours; fair is fair, right?

If HRW is totally without credibility, what do you make of their recent report on Syria?

...to reverse something he never claimed. And after reading the report's conclusions, all you say is that maybe he reversed himself in #293? Please. How desperate can you get? The Goldstone Report is dead and buried. Not because only a small, tiny part of it was retracted, but because the entire report was invalidated via his op-ed. I know you don't wish to admit it, but it's past history. It's never coming up again. It's not coming up again b/c even the stupid UN knows it's ridiculous to go on with it when Goldstone nuked it himself. They realize quite well what you cannot admit. It's yet another in a long line of pathetic UN attempts to smear Israel.

As for the T/F questions, no you did not answer specifically about contradictions between HRW and Roth's statements prior to Goldstone's reversal and after, where Roth claims HRW never made such a claim. You have evaded that for several posts now. The deal was that I answer you after you answer me.

To be honest, you didn't answer any questions T/F. You snipped only parts of what you wished to answer. Agreeing to partial truths, which is what you agree with, is agreeing to a lie. When someone only tells a partial truth, they are lying. You know this. It's why you couldn't and will not answer me straight up. You proved my point by evading.

...because Goldstone admitted that most of the report was baseless.

And you still haven't responded with a T/F response to Ken Roth and HRW. Still waiting for that.

But no matter; I already understand that you will accept that report as completely true, even while you claim HRW has no credibility.

If you remember, this began as me questioning your credibility, and the credibility of your sources, Shira. I'm not surprised by the results of our little exploration of this question, but I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed.

In the course of our journey, you've referenced nothing but right-wing blogs and your own posts. You've struggled - and failed - to "prove' the Gaza Mission report as being "completely discredited," even though you have clearly never once read the thing. In the course of doing so you have also attempted to do the same with Israel's report on the situation. You have apparently endorsed efforts to harass and intimidate a guy, up to and including attacks on his Jewish identity. You squawk about how far without credibility HRW is, but again, you no doubt take their reports as valid when they're talking about Syria - just as I surmised you would.

End result of our little experiment? You have the credibility of a crumb-covered five year old who professes to have never seen a cookie in his life.

Here's hoping you can improve. If nothing else, primary sources. Stop with this "blog repost of a blog repost of an editorial about a news article that references a report" stuff, kay?

...what does that have to do WRT their reporting on Israel?

Look, we both know the reason you won't answer WRT Roth and HRW. You know damned well Roth lied and HRW was wrong. Why not just admit it? Their hostility and bias is a matter of record. Here's just one article on it:

http://www.tnr.com/article/minority-report-2

I'm wondering just how much evidence of HRW malice you require before you start admitting you see a problem. 3 examples? 10? 20? Would any amount of evidence suffice?

You've spent this entire time stomping around proclaiming that Human Rights Watch is completely and utterly without any credibility whatsoever. Period. End of story. Fin.

But there's this story of how terrible Syria is being towards its own people, with what was it, 200 citations of torture? God alone knows how many other abuses? And going on HRW's website... moving to their Middle East / North Africa section... Wow. Would you look at that? They're knocking the taste out of the mouths of Libya, Syria, and Iran. Ten pages in, they've gone on about human rights violations in Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia, Algeria, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, loads more about Syria and Iran...

But of course, since they are totally and completely without credibility, all of that is false, right? No doubt it's built upon a deeply held malice towards these countries, perhaps even malice towards the Arab (and Persian) people themselves!

Or not. Maybe your assessment is just fucking wrong. I'm sure the possibility never crossed your mind.

But wait! I forgot. Your problem is with their reporting on Israel, and only with their reporting on Israel, right? Kind of looks that way. Okay. So we've got ourselves a little dichotomy there, Shira. You've drawn this circle around Israel / Palestine and declared every report from HRW about that territory utterly invalid and without merit. All of it. But everything outside that bubble reported by HRW - by the same team, no less - is wholly credible.

If that's the case, then it looks less like a problem with HRW's reporting, and more like you just refusing stuff that doesn't fit your preferred narrative. Which, to hearken back to the original point of this subthread, does no favors to your own credibility.

is HRW's reporting perfect? Probably not, nothing is perfect. But they're not the baby-eating motherfuckers you and others who suffer the "Israel always good, everyone else always bad" logical disjunction insist they are. Ultimately, your "criticisms" come off as mere self-serving whines from a bunch of fanboys dismayed by the poor reviews their favorite franchise is receiving.

if nothing else sinks in, at least ask yourself; if these organizations hate Israel SO SO MUCH, why do they spend so much goddamned time talking about how godawful Israel's neighbors are?

And before you rush back to "Cifwatch" to drum up an article lamenting how often Israel is reported on, I'll go ahead and tell you about this year's statistics. Since the start of this year, HRW has reported on Israel ten times. One of those times was actually commending Israel for acceding to a fellow on a hunger strike. The Palestinian Authority is reported on three times; all three condemning the Palestinian Authority for human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch has made two hundred and sixty reports / releases about the Middle East and North Africa during that time. And the only positive ones were that one for Israel, and another applauding the Arab Spring. 4% (rounded up!) of Human rights Watch's time covering the Middle East / North Africa was spent on Israel this year. 3% of Human rights Watch's time covering the Middle East / North Africa was spent on knocking Israel about this that or th'other this year. And Human rights Watch reports on five other regions in the world, for a total of somewhere between 1400 - 1500 articles total over the past six months.

So, yeah, do make a point of sparing me that "disproportionate reporting" bullshit. If you look at 2009, 2006, or 2002, yeah, you'll find a spike in the numbers of Israel articles then. It's because those were wars (or an uprising, in the case of 2002) and unsurprisingly, human rights tend to get fucked without lube in the course of war. You might almost say it's kind of the POINT of war, honestly, which is a good reason most people think war's a generally bad thing.

Seems we'll agree to not agree with each other. I'll leave you with Robert Bernstein's article WRT the organization he founded back in the 70's...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

It's been known to happen, after all.

For an unrelated example, take Henry Rollins. He was the front man for the punk band Black Flag between 1981 and 1986, then went on to a solo career as a musician, stand-up comedian, and assorted other venues after they broke up. Reportedly he looks back at Black Flag as something of an embarrassment. Does this mean that Black Flag was a bad band? Did they make nothing but bad music? Are fans of Black Flag bad people? Should I trash all my Black Flag songs? Because their front man changed his mind?

Bernstein changed his mind. Good for him, he's certainly entitled to do so. if you think everyone needs to fall into lockstep behind him.. .Well... Sorry, you can act all Branch Davidian if you want, but what i'm seeing, with my own eyes, using primary sources? Doesn't tell me I need to follow Bernstein's lead.

I'll leave you with some awesome fucking music;

Are you a fan of the current or earlier incarnation of Rollins?

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

though I make an exception for the song "People Who Died." His spoken-word stuff is great, though. Nothing like intelligent yet wild-eyed rants.

On edit: That song turns out ot be by the Jim Carrol Band. Oops. Well, I guess I just don't like the Henry rRollins band, then

Both Goldstone and Bernstein were on the HRW board. Do you realize how ballsy it is for both to come out against Roth and HRW?

=======

FYI, B'tselem never agreed with HRW and Goldstone either...

Now, in addition to continuing trying to convince me that HRW's "hostility and bias" is a "matter of record," you're going to try to give me arguments as for how and why it's okay to kill civilians? And those arguments amount to "Hey, could have been worse" and of course, "the devil made me do it."

Save it for another thread, Shira.

And what's the point now of bringing up human rights WRT civilians killed in combat? Israel's record on that is better than any other nation on the planet, including NATO, the USA, and UK.

Face it, Roth and HRW lied.

Not only do they lie, they'd rather do that than commit to even one report on a country like Mauritania (which they haven't reported on in 15 years despite rampant slavery there). If they do that WRT Mauritania, what else is HRW failing to report on when they claim to work for universal human rights?

Not interested anymore, are you?

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

One; It's not quite accurate that HRW has not reported on Mauritania in fifteen years. It's not quite a lie, either, though. There are actually several countries in Africa that Human Rights Watch doesn't cover with any regularity, it seems; Mauritania is one of them. Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Congo, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Sao Tome & Principe, Swaziland, and the Seychelles are the other African countries that don't seem to get primary airtime. You can find their mentions however by using the search function on their site. There are a few other countries "omitted" by HRW around the world; Mongolia, Finland, and Suriname, for a few. However, by using the search function you can easily find articles on these nations just the same.

My guess as to the reason for this is simple inaccessibility, for the most part; Burkina Faso is, shall we say, "rugged." The Seychelles are tiny islands under an absolute monarchy that isn't about to let any monitors in, etc.. But please, do tell me how in your world, omission of Finland furthers Human Rights Watch's malicious, evil, anti-Israel intent.

While you're telling me that, maybe you'd like to link me to your no doubt numerous posts scattered around DU - old or new - regarding and bringing attention to the slaves of Mauritania. I'm sure that since this subject is of deep concern to you, I'll be greeted with at least ten such links, and I look forward to your informed and experienced insights into a situation of which I admit I am only peripherally aware. Oh, one thing... they should be threads that are not presented in the context of Israel / Palestine.

As for the killing of civilians... you're the one who opened that up. If you want to close it back up, hey feel free. I'm just pointing out that these arguments;
"It's not as bad as it COULD have been; we could have killed lots and lots and lots and lots more people!"
and
"Don't worry, it's cool; the bad guys made me do it, I'm in the clear"
Are shitty fucking arguments, regardless of who's using them, or why. Here, let me show you.

Hamas: "So we shot five hundred rockets over the border last week, who cares, we only caused a few minor injuries and some property damage. It could have been so much worse!"
Syria: "All the people we're killing are really foreign terrorists. So it's okay that we're killing them. Yes, there were some innocents, but the terrorists had to be fought!
Mauritania: "Yes, we have slaves. But at least we don't eat them!"
United States: "Yes, we admit we totally flattened a medium-sized city in Iraq. But we totally let everyone know before we did it. The only people left in there were terrorists; all the innocents fled!"

See how goofy that is? Don't use shitty arguments, Shira.

...where you questioned this:

You've come up with nothing that requires a defense, Shira.

1) OMG THEY CAN'T FORCE ASSAD AND HIS CRONIES TO STOP KILLING PEOPLE!
Well, no, they can't. Short of military intervention, the only way for that situation to stop is if Assad decides to stop, or if the people they're killing manage to overthrow his regime. However, Human Rights Watch has released a fairly comprehensive and quite damning report against Syria for what it's doing. It's a reporting organization, not a paramilitary force, and it's done exactkly what itsstated purpose is regarding Syria.

2) LOL THE FOUNDER DISAGREES WITH THEM NOW!"
Good for him, he'd changed his mind since 1988 (or 1978, if you want to go all the way back to Helsinki Watch.) At the same time, Human rights Watch has expanded its focus beyond just "closed regimes" because, obviously, human rights offenses take place in "open" regimes as well.

3) THEY HATE ISRAEL AND YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE THEY WRITE ABOUT ISRAEL SO MUCH!
Do they? Do you know what nation, bar none, has absolutely the most Human Rights Watch articles written about it? Israel, right? Oooooh, it's GOTTA be Israel. Israel's the poor innocent victim here, bullied by the big mean NGO, right?
Nope. it's not Israel. Not by a long shot. it's not even a combination of Israel / Palestine. It's China. Well, Israel must be second-place! ...Nope, that'd be Russia. Third place is the United States. Fourth is a tie between Burma and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Israel is in the "big middle" along with places like the United Kingdom or Egypt.

4) "THEY ARE DELEGITIMIZING ISRAEL!"
Like I asked... what, are they going to take away Israel's license? How does this work? Despite my browser's spellcheck's insistence, 'delegitimizing' is a real word, with a real meaning. Human Rights Watch has no authority to remove the legal status of a nation. Nor for that matter, does anyone else. I've noticed Team Israel has taken to using this instead of the older "right to exist" argument, but both are goofy arguments simply because as long as Israel's saying Israel exists, then it fucking does. The only way that will change is if Israel goes all Rhodesia and says "never mind," or if the Red Sea rift opens up and results in Israel (along with Lebanon and much of Jordan) becoming a new seaway between the Red and Mediterranean.

5) THEY'RE FALSE ALLEGATIONS!
Maybe some of 'em are. Already said I don't expect 'em to be perfect. Your argument isn't about "some," however. You've been screaming from your little rooftop this whole time about how Human rights Watch is completely without credibility. Absolutely, 100%, totally wrong about absolutely everything. Basically, if they reported on Slavery in Mauritania, you would be forced - by your absolutist standpoint - to dismiss it as false, malicious slander against the good people of Mauritania.

Also, you applied the "completely without credibility" and "malicious intent against Israel" to absolutely every NGO and international agency that contributed to the Gaza Report. One of those contributors was B'tselem. You've supported antisemitic slander, death threats, and intimidation against Richard Goldstone as well, while insisting he's completely wrong about everything. You don't get to hide behind them, Shira.

6) I TRULY CARE DEEPLY, WITH ALL MY HEART, FOR THE SLAVES OF MAURITANIA, AND MY CONCERN IS NOT SOLELY A FARCE TO DISTRACT FROM A DISCUSSION THAT ISN'T GOING MY WAY!
Still waiting on those links, Shira.

We're done here, Shira. But i'm not going to leave you empty-handed.

...that Goldstone retreated from. Worse, Ken Roth lied about what HRW reported and when responding to Goldstone's retraction, he insisted Israel (the govt, not some rogue soldiers or units) targeted civilians. The idiot couldn't even keep his damned story straight in his response to Goldstone. "Hey, we never signed onto Goldstone's conclusion that he retracted. But Israel did target civilians. So there". Roth is a tool, and you can find nothing to defend?



Yeah, you're right. You're done. You were done a while back when you refused to answer any of my T/F questions. I knew that either you wouldn't or you'd have to admit you were wrong. This conversation basically ended back then.

Ironic how you can find absolutely nothing to criticize wrt HRW. Idealogues and religious types operate similarly. Usually, it's the anti-Israel critics who accuse Israel's supporters of being incapable of criticizing Israel (not that I've seen any Israel supporters who have nothing to criticize Israel for). But here you are doing exactly that...

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

do tend to strain your credibility on this site, perhaps you are confusing it with another one ?

If it's about rightwing sources, maybe you should consider another site on which to post your favorite Ma'an and EI rightwingery.

but you do seem to have a unique perspective of what is rightwing and what is progressive, kudos I always find it quite fascinating

do you mean "unique" like dadaism?

...on behalf of their totalitarian anti-liberal leadership against a progressive democracy like Israel, then it's preposterous to claim you hold to liberal/progressive values. It's silly for you to call out liberals for their alleged "rightwingery".

Heck, you recently all but admitted you're for Palestinian nationalism first and foremost before anything else. Their civil rights are secondary. If they never have civil rights, that's okay too. Now if THAT's not a rightwing nationalist viewpoint, I don't know what is.

Have a nice day, "Alice".

territories under its military rule? Supporting Palestinians who demand their own state as a opposed to a military occupation who's home country may be 'liberal' but who's 'liberal' laws do not apply or have any bearing on the treatment of those non-citizens who live under that occupation is rightwing, totalitarian, and anticivil rights?

...with everyone enjoying their civil liberties. Their civil liberties must be put on hold until they get such a state. THAT is your opinion.

That opinion applies to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon suffering under apartheid conditions. THEY don't get civil liberties b/c you don't believe condemning Lebanon would amount to much. You won't lift a finger for them. The same applies to Hamas in Gaza. You can't criticize them either for their human rights violations against Palestinians there.

So why should anyone believe you'll suddenly start "caring" about Palestinian civil rights once the WB occupation ends and the Palestinians have a state there? Why would you "care" more about their civil liberties than any other Arabs in the region (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc)?

It's so bad that when I asked you earlier if 'Goldstone' was worth it; worth that monumental waste of time and resources that took away from worse around the globe (like Palestinian rights under Lebanese/Gazan rule) you said 'yes'. The reason you gave is that Israel did stuff in response to it, so it wasn't a wasted effort. Meaning, you don't expect Lebanon, Gaza, or the WB to ever listen to the UNHRC or HRW. There's no point. They won't change. Meaning you'll do THEN as you do NOW and never advocate for Palestinian civil rights. Not even when they have their own state. What's the point, right?

In essence, you're doing the advocacy of the most regressive, rightwing totalitarian regimes in that region. You're working AGAINST the people and their civil rights. You want to give the PLO and Hamas their own state, to do with it as they will. And you'll never condemn them. That would be "delegitimization". And yet you're here accusing others of rightwingery, "Alice".

the next 4 paragraphs of accusatory garbage you just posted can not distract from that no matter how hard you wish

it could seem that your are for Palestinians civil rights being on hold as long as it's Israel putting them on hold

The arrest: Thirty of the minors said they were taken from their home by soldiers in the middle of the night and that their parents were not allowed to accompany them.

The interrogation: Only three of the minors who were arrested at night said they were interrogated that night. Nineteen stated they were questioned the next morning, three were questioned in the afternoon, and two were not questioned until five days later. Only three of the minors who were arrested at night reported that they were given a reasonable chance to sleep prior to the interrogation, and five related that soldiers made a point of awakening them if they fell asleep while waiting for the interrogation. Nineteen also said they were treated violently and were threatened during the interrogation, and 23 said that they were not allowed, for many hours, to perform necessary functions, such as going to the bathroom, eating, and drinking.

Remand until the end of proceedings: The military justice system does not have an alternative to remand until the end of proceedings as the Israeli law does. In the vast majority of cases, the judges order the minor held in custody until the end of the proceedings. Of the 133 minors who were prosecuted for stone throwing in cases handled by DCI-Palestine in 2009 and 2010, only 23 (17 percent) were released on bail pending their trial. As a result, many minors prefer to enter into a plea bargain, in which they confess to the charges against them in exchange for a shorter sentence, fearing that, if a trial is held, they would be kept in jail during the long period of time that it takes to complete the trial.

Imprisonment: Imprisonment, rather than an alternative punishment, is the principal penalty chosen by the military courts. In the period 2005-2010, 93 percent of the minors convicted of stone throwing were given a prison sentence, its length ranging from a few days to 20 months. Nineteen minors under age 14, who accounted for 60 percent of this age group who were convicted of stone throwing during this period, were given a prison sentence. Under the law in Israel, incarceration of minors under age 14 is prohibited.

http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/2011-no-minor-matter

When I first read Joseph Dana's article of last year, "Israeli army targets and arrests children in order to repress Palestinian dissent in the West Bank," it sent chills up my spine, and I was sure that someday, somehow this story would get out onto the world stage. Today we're one step closer.

The Independent's Terri Judd is reporting that the UK is ready to take on Israel over fate of children clapped in irons:

snip

Judd's article chronicles a delegation of senior British lawyers and their report, Children in Military Custody. But one thing it does not do is provide context for a lot of these arrests. It doesn't mention they take place in villages across the West Bank involved in non-violent struggle and in areas where village lands are targeted for annexation to nearby settlements and the settlers are pushing Palestinians off their lands.

People cherish their children. That is one thing all societies share in common. Targeting the children of a village so as to stop residents from protesting the confiscation of their village land or for the theft of resources or expansion of settlements is, as the Independent says, unconscionable-- and it is happening right before our eyes in villages all across the West Bank including Bil'in, Nabi Saleh, Beit Ommar, Beit Sahour, the Jordan Valley as well as in East Jerusalem.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/arrests-of-palestinian-children-a-boy-in-leg-irons-is-becoming-a-big-story-in-uk.html

B’Tselem just released disturbing footage of a Border Police officer kicking a Palestinian child while another officer holds him on the streets of occupied Hebron. The video was shot last Friday June 29 by a B’Tselem activist, from the window of his house, adjacent to the Tomb of the Patriarchs. According to B’Tselem, the person started shooting the video upon noticing a border police officer hiding behind the wall.

The name of the child is Abed a-Rahman and he is only 9 years old. You can see the policeman at the start of the video appear, then disappear, and then reappear at about 1:22 when he runs to grab the child and says: “Why are you causing trouble?” As the policeman holds the crying boy, another policeman comes and kicks him. The child is then released and runs away and the policemen disperse. B’Tselem is filing a complaint against the two men with the Police Investigation Department.

http://972mag.com/watch-palestinian-child-kicked-by-border-police-in-hebron/49951