Amnesty International, the so-called Independent Human Rights organisation, has released a report about war crimes committed during the Cast Lead episode. To help, the BBC web page shows injured babies.
Israel’s crimes, many, varied and wide-ranging, (as well as wanton, deliberate and unjustified,) largely amount to not being accurate enough with their retaliatory responses. So when Hamas sends rockets from densely populated areas, Israel must restrain itself until it is absolutely certain that the guilty party can be targeted precisely, (provided that he is a militant, and not a civilian or a ‘child’) Then he’s permitted to be neatly zapped like in a computer game.
Well, we knew all this already.
The BBC doesn’t say that Donatella Rovera’s report is emotive and unprofessional, or that it criticises Israel “disproportionately “ and “Indiscriminately.”
On ‘Ask Amnesty’ for example, she seems to think Israel occupies Gaza. However hard she tries, her attempts to appear even-handed fall flat.
Neither Amnesty nor the BBC sees fit to mention that Hamas provoked the war in the first place, and that there could be peace tomorrow if the Palestinians recognised Israel and renounced violence. (I meant peace with Israel, – not peace amongst themselves, a different thing altogether.)
On this occasion I don’t think the BBC is as biased as usual. There are scare quotes around ‘war crimes’ in the headline. Almost as though they weren’t unreservedly supporting Amnesty’s report. Or is that wishful thinking?
Amnesty’s method of ‘evidence gathering’ is merely to question Palestinian eyewitnesses. Even the BBC might think that a little unscrupulous and unprofessional. But then again…
Notice the "big picture" today on the ME website. Dewey eyed kids on a balcony of a ruined house which looks as if CQB occured.
I have emailed the BBC "requesting" they show balance by posting a picture of a ruined house in Siderot, destroyed by islamic terrorists, as their next posting.
The report criticises Hamas as well as Israel for "war crimes". But the first mention I heard on the BBC was that Amnesty was accusing Israel – Hamas was then added as an afterthought. Bias from the word go ?
Hamas is primarily responsible on 2 levels – firstly, by constant rocket attacks, secondly by using crowded civilian areas to fire more rockets and to hide out. So – if either side is to be mentioned first by the BBC, IF the assertions are to be given any credence, it should ALWAYS be Hamas ? With the BBC, it is ALWAYS Israel.
This one is a doozy:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8128210.stm
"It also says Palestinian militants rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was "indiscriminate and hence unlawful under international law", although it only rarely caused civilian casualties"
rarely caused civilian casualties. Oh that's OK then, nevermind the fact that the citizens of Sderot had to be 30 seconds from a shelter at any given time due to the fact that 30s was all the warning they had of an incoming kassam.
Nevermind that coincidentally these 'inaccurate' rockets noticeably managed to hit a nursery(luckily no kids were in it at the time).
Nice to see the BBC putting a cherry atop the Amnesty icing.
Cretins.
Damn that should be Sderot obviously. Over hasty.
Hi Sue, sorry to add something off topic but I just saw the BBC headline on the US soldier captured in Afghanistan – "Afghan Rebels Capture US Soldier" . So now the Beeb are calling the murderous thugs of the Taliban "Rebels"…..not even "militants" but "Rebels". I know Al-BBC could never describe those who buy children as suicide bombers, throw acid in women's faces and behead civilians as Terrorists but do they have to give them the neutral title "Rebels"? In the war against Taliban barbarism which side are Al-BBC on ?
Amnesty and the BBC are entitled to their views but it is not right that everyone should have to pay to have them broadcast.
I use my TV to watch live premier league football on Sky Sports. Why should I have to pay for Amnesty and BBC propaganda to do this without getting a fine and a criminal record?
And whats all this about Euromoney support for these rotten to the core anti-Semetic dhimmi/commie NGOs?
Just what the hell is going on?
Also, well worth a read: I'm sure the BBC is in there somewhere –
"Anti-Israel Culture War of British Liberal Elites Is Not a Grassroots Movement
or, Explaining the British-Led Culture War on Israel"
by Peter C Glover (July 2009)
[Extract]:
"It's not just Hamas rockets that regularly strike Israeli interests these days. It is just as likely to be the long-range politicized 'ordnance' of British liberal elites, given the British Left's penchant for pursuing cultural boycotts against Israel.
"Over the past few years the unions for British journalists, architects, doctors, even the Synod of the Church of England, have all sought boycott or censure motions against Israel. In 2007 British academics added themselves to the list – imposing a boycott of relations between British and Israeli universities at a conference of the British University and Colleges Union (UCU).
"In 2009, after Israel’s latest spat with Hamas in Gaza, Britain’s leftist culture warriors again took to the streets. In March, 400 British academics lined up outside London’s Science Museum to protest against workshops celebrating the achievements of Israeli Scientists."
'New English Review' go to Featured Articles, July 2009.)
'Jihadwatch' (2 July)
"Amnesty International ignores Hamas' boasting about using civilians as human shields, says they didn't use them but Israel did, accuses Israel of 'war crimes.'"
[Extract, in contrast to BBC report on this]:
"Dhimmitude at Amnesty. The evidence is abundant. Amnesty International ignored it. Here is some of it:
"Hamas placed children on rooftops as human shields preventing Israeli attack on Qassam workshops and warehouses.
"Video of Palestinian jihadists using children as human shields.
"Hamas MP: We used women and children as human shields."
There are links , with evidence, about Hamas using human shields at the 'Jihadwatch' report.
IDF response to Amnesty Report : 2 July 2009
EXTRACT: The Amnesty report ignores a critical aspect of Operation Cast Lead – Hamas consistently, deliberately and routinely violated International Law, specifically the prohibition against the use of "human shields." While Hamas was using Palestinian civilian centers to fire rockets at the citizens of Israel, the IDF went to great lengths to combat their terrorism while maintaining a firm commitment to the laws of war….. …It is to Amnesty International's discredit that the report they issued, focuses so intently on any and all IDF infractions, and ignores the blatant violations of international law perpetrated by Hamas.
Full response at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Templates/ArticleDynamicFix.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={288B1995-AE9A-4A4D-9BE3-5325DB926992}&NRORIGINALURL=%2FMFA%2FGovernment%2FCommuniques%2F2009%2FIDF_response_Amnesty_Report_2-Jul-2009.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest
The movie accompanying the report piece on the Amnesty site interviews an 'UNWRA Guard' and appears to rely for much of the evidence in their report on these duplicitous HAMAS placemen. You can tell it's propaganda when you hear the tear-jerking music accompanying the images.
These are the very people that facilitated the storing of weapons and positioning of HAMAS rocket launches at UNWRA schools – ensuring that children were used as human shields when Israel defended herself.
Yet the uncritical, sentimental hippies at AI fall for it time and time again. Amnesty, even if you had any before, you have no credibility after this stitch-up job.
Unsound information provided by unsound witnesses, reported on by an unsound organisation, trumpeted by an even more unsound media – particularly al-BebeCeera.
this is a typical smear job.
pretend to blame both sides, while demanding retribution from only one of them. as if the arabs terrorists would allow thier "heroes" to be tried in courts, but maybe we can force the jewsto prosecute thier own people.
we have enjoyed this slimy dishonesty from amnesty for many years in northern ireland.
blame both sides quietly then deamnd loudly a huge enquiry to be paid for by only one side.
what utter scum
ngg
Watch the Amnesty guy squirm in this interesting debate.
http://www.blinkx.com/video/gerald-steinberg-of-ngo-monitor-and-josh-rubenstein-of-amnesty-5-10-09/hOJxy8W7g_a6Fqa1MSQjtQ
Mailman
"In its report, Amnesty International criticizes Canada for sometimes being on the wrong side. One example it gives is that we voted against a special UN mission to examine human rights in Israel. It's worth noting that the UN Human Rights Commission includes such beacons of democracy as Zimbabwe, China, Sudan and Syria. At its annual meeting last month, its members voted down an inquiry into the rigged elections in Zimbabwe. They failed to mention persecutions in China or suffering in Chechnya. Instead, they spent most of their time resolving to support Palestinians in their "armed struggle" and condemning Israel for "acts of mass killings."
Once upon a time, I used to admire the UN. I looked up to Amnesty International, too. But they've become apologists for terror. They aren't part of the solution. They're part of the problem. And I've written them my last cheque. "
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/_call_it_sham_nesty_international_an_apologist_for_terror_
About those scare quotes around 'war crimes' in the headline.
The crucial first paragraph states: Israel committed war crimes and carried out reckless attacks and acts of wanton destruction in its Gaza offensive, an independent human rights report says.
If this is a direct quote where are the quotation marks indicating that this is a statement and not a fact? Correct grammar and fairness point to them being there.
deegee
i don't think that is supposed to be a direct quote. It is indirect or reported speech, so no quote marks are required. The problem I have with that sentence is the emotive use of 'independent'.
yes, "independent" and "right-wing" are just two of the terms the bbc throws out or quotes willingly…and always to legitimize or de-ligitimize consistently groups of a distinct 'flavour' – according to its own persuasions
Amnesty International is neither independent or honest, they sart with a political narrative and then they work to confirm that preconceived narrative with fake and made up evidence based soley on information given by the enemies of the ideological/political enemy.
Hamas and its allied political organisations provided the bulk of the so called evidence to the AI report, the UNWRA is a wholly owned and opperated subsidiary of Hamas inc, they do as they are told, they jump when ordered, they launder and deliver hamas cash when ordered, they employ hamas thugs when ordered, they lie when ordered and they are used as a safe method of strategic and tactical comunication with UN vehicles/ambulances used as hamas transport, the phrase 'just a puppet on a string' comes to mind here, the very last thing that AI and UNWRA is is impartial and independent!
I find this report to be 100% accurate
JB, In view of all the preceding pieces of evidence and the comments made, just to say "I find this report to be 100% accurate", with out any attempts at rebuttal or argument, says all we need to know about YOU.
Mailman 10:54 PM
http://www.blinkx.com/video/gerald-steinberg-of-ngo-monitor-and-josh-rubenstein-of-amnesty-5-10-09/hOJxy8W7g_a6Fqa1MSQjtQ
Thanks for a very interesting video, and yes, the Amnesty guy certainly squirms, and lies!
Even the BBC gets a mention at 25.55 when Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor mentions that the first Amnesty spokesperson on the BBC who was nowhere near Jenin, was allowed to report that there had been a massacre, which Josh Rubenstein of Amnesty says, "I can't remember the report".
He (Josh Rubenstein) had earlier repeated the old 'one of the most densely populated area in the world' phrase about Gaza, which was, of course refuted by the audience.
Unfotunately Israel, or rather Gerald Steinberg could be accused of attacking an unarmed man here!
Further evidence that the pathology of Amnesty International and the BBC has reached Third Reich proportions.
The hollow ring of the BBC's coverage of Holocaust memorial these days is deafening.
Agreed, the BBC shouldn't published these kind of reports cause we don't agree with them.
Yeah we dont agree with the BBC becoming the mouthpiece of hamas propaganda central. Which it clearly is in its coverage of this rag of a "report"
Any questions about shamnesties' methodology? Any hint of criticism of its tone, which is pretty shameless?
You are talking shite.
Anon 1:13
The BBC should publish these reports, but always precede the words "Amnesty International" with "Left-wing pressure group" .
and now Human Rights Watch have pitched in, too.
Institutionalised leftist dogma with little or no basis in fact and with highly questionable sourcing.
If the BBC had completely ignored the Amnesty report it would amount to bias by omission, and if it had reported it in a critical manner, (I said ‘if’!) well, that wouldn’t be impartial.
The prominence, or lack thereof, that they choose to give such a story is about the only way they could achieve the appearance of balance or impartiality.
Publicising a graphically illustrated lengthy list of Palestinian sufferings and unverifiable eyewitness accounts that Amnesty International have decreed war crimes, and treating it as if it is an objective, scientifically evidenced report, is not what the BBC should be doing.
They should have presented it as a minor news story, i.e. with a couple of lines on the web. No news bulletin headlines at all, and no trying to please certain audiences with sensationalised headlines.