(aka Amnesty and HRW)
It was a while back that I read the Human Rights Watch report on the war between Israel and Hezbullah. I realised then that there was quite a bizarre section which claimed that on the one hand Hezbullah had used settlements for rocket launch pads, while on the other that they hadn’t used “human shields”. Just how wrapped in humanity one has to be to have a human shield around one isn’t clear- a dance of definition noticed with scorn by LGF.
The BBC is to be commended in its report for calling HRW and Amnesty “pressure groups”. Now all they need to do is to subject them to the most cursory scrutiny. They could start I suppose with the fact that the following claim (with the same pretzel-like logic) appears to be lifted directly from the HRW report by Amnesty:
“Amnesty found that Hezbollah hid Katyusha rockets among civilians and often fired them into Israel from the cover of civilian villages.
But researchers found no evidence that Hezbollah actually used civilians as human shields during the fighting.”
Maybe I mistitled this post, in fact. The Gospels get a far harder time than the BBC gives its pet transnationals.
No need for a hat tip ed 😉
BBC Usual pattern:
Gaza shields an ‘illegal tactic’
Human Rights Watch said that using civilians as human shields or knowingly putting them in danger, were breaches of international humanitarian law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6173850.stm
But HRW said more than that:
It is a war crime to seek to use the presence of civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations or to direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attack.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm
If the accused was Israel, you can bet the headline would have been: Israel’s war crime.
BTW, didn’t the BBC’ correspondent expressed adulation for these courages human shields
If the accused was Israel, you can bet the headline would have been: Israel’s war crime.
it would also have been featured on the front page rather than buried away in the Middle East section.
BTW, didn’t the BBC’ correspondent expressed adulation for these courages human shields
They were certainly happy to see it as a triumph against Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6164666.stm
For years Palestinians have been completely at the mercy of the Israeli air force, but they clearly believe that now they have found a weakness, our correspondent says.
The Israelis can no longer expect to limit civilian casualties by calling ahead and clearing people out, he adds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6162494.stm
The BBC’s Alan Johnston in Gaza says it appears that an unprecedented act of defiance by the Palestinians to a particular Israeli tactic has worked.
Quote:
momotaro:
“BBC Usual pattern:
Gaza shields an ‘illegal tactic’
Human Rights Watch said that using civilians as human shields or knowingly putting them in danger, were breaches of international humanitarian law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl…ast/ 6173850.stm
But HRW said more than that:
It is a war crime to seek to use the presence of civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations or to direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attack.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/ 2006…isrlpa14652.htm”
Al-Beeb refering to the topic as mere opinon by HRW is a clear deliberate spin. The quote from HRW is in fact straight out of
“Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977”, article 7:
“7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”
See here
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm
Trust al-Beeb to spin it as a mere opinion.
Correction of ref:
It’s article 51/7
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm
Jeremy al-Bowen, in his appalling book Six Days, whines piteously about thr awful Israelis bombing a Palestinian anti-aircraft position and hitting the adjoining civilian homes instead.
Needless to say, he completely fails to question why there was a gun position sited amid homes, or to mention that doing so is a war crime.
I wonder if Tim Reynolds has the b*lls to show up here and try to defend the Beeb’s dishonesty in this story.
BBCnews, Middle East, Wednesday, Nov 22, 2006.
Story: “Israelis push back into Gaza town”.
Opening: “Israeli troops have moved into an area of the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun where Israeli artillery killed almost 20 people earlier this month.”
I got an impression that Israelis enjoy entering Gaza and killing people. No other reason provided.
Burried inside is another piece of information: “In the Israeli border town of Sderot, a man died of his wounds after being hit by rocket fire on Tuesday.”
And then, under the AP picture of a sweet but frightened Palestinian lady: “Sustained Israeli military pressure has failed to stop rocket attacks”.
Conclusion: reading BBCnews.com is like reading “Pravda” in the former Soviet Union.
How’s this for a major BBC omission:
A Muslim was convicted of murdering a swan. This is illegal because swans belong to the Queen. The BBC article makes no mention of his statement upon arrest:
I hate the Queen, I hate this country.
http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2006/11/muslim-mudered-swan-during-ramadan.html
Hmm, I can’t imagine why the BBC didn’t mention that.
It is in there:
“The officers told him the swan was the property of the Queen and he replied, ‘I hate the Queen, I hate this country.'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_west/6174344.stm
So only the Welsh know about what he really said….