Under criticism for its lack of objectivity, the London-based Amnesty International announced Wednesday that Hizbullah's firing of thousands of rockets into Israel amounted to "war crimes."The findings, which appear in a new 15-page report, come three weeks after the human rights group issued a previous report which called Israeli strikes "war crimes," but failed to mention Hizbullah's rocket attacks. –from this news article
This tiny postscript comes two weeks after the massive manuscript ("'Israelis Committed War Crimes,' says Amnesty International") was distributed far and wide. To the little addendum, dangling, The Times will devote a tiny particle of an article, deep inside -- not the massive coverage given to that massive "Israelis Committed War Crimes" manuscript published to worldwide acclaim a few weeks ago.
Why bother with the addendum, the little lean-to, the pretend-condemnation of heroic Hizballah? To establish a claim to "fairness." To establish a claim to "equal-opportunity" denunciation. To farcically pretend that Amnesty International, Ms. Khan's nasty little domain, which has little in common (just like the U.N.) with what it started as and what it was intended to be, is fair.
But why, one may ask, if there was going to be a report on Hizballah, did not Amnesty International hold both its reports and release them simultaneously? Why did it rush out, and rush out without bothering to find out how Hizballah had conducted its war? Why didn’t it consider the 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 or 8,000 rockets fired completely indiscriminately into Israel and, where possible, into its third major city, Haifa (the biggest city those rockets could reach)? Why didn’t it take testimony as to the placement of Hizballah’s own weaponry smack in the middle, always and everywhere, of civilians, and the more civilians, of course, the better for Hizballah?
This is a late, belated, too-late, utterly phony, half-hearted "symmetrical" condemnation of what is not symmetrical at all. For Hizballah wished to hit Israeli civilians and wished to fire only from among civilians in Lebanon -- while the Israelis took great pains (leafletting, computer-generated phone calls warning people to leave, constantly holding fire so that warnings could be acted on) to avoid civilian casualties. And as anyone familiar with warfare knows, the number of genuine civilian casualties in a month of fighting in Lebanon was ridiculously, absurdly low by the standards of any other war, fought by any other army (including the American, British, and other allied armies, in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, or any of a hundred other conflicts over the past few decades). That is testimony to the great efforts of Israel.
Nothing at all.
Disgust at this once-reputable organization. Disgust with all of those organizations infiltrated either directly, or indirectly, by those who promote the goals of an Islamintern International -- the E.U., the U.N., the assorted holier-than-thou "non-governmental" repositories for those of a certain mindset, a mindset that will never ever detect, for example, the threat of a belief-system that uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel, and imposes the duty of Jihad, active participation or support of others directly engaged, in order to remove all "obstacles" (such as free speech, and free exercise of belief, and the legal equality of women and non-Muslims) to the spread of Islam, until such time as Islam everywhere dominates and Muslims rule, everywhere.
By its very nature, such organizations as Amnesty International cannot make moral judgments. But of course they do. They make moral judgments by not making them. They make moral judgments by equating Israel's attempts to defend itself against those who if they could would entirely efface the state of Israel as an Infidel cancer, or to use that other telling metaphor, a "knife in the heart" of Arab Muslim lands. Hizballah is, to the intelligent, an obvious fascistic movement, akin to the Stormtroopers: the black-shirted black-balaclaved Kalashnikov-clutching bezonians goosestepping their way into Lebanese, Arab, Muslim history, as they terrorize within Lebanon, and attempt -- so far unsuccessfully -- to terrorize Israel and others without.
Irene Khan and her court cannot see this. Instead, they must insist on a symmetry that is false and grotesque, and indeed, false even its "symmetrical" denunciation -- because the noise and the lights and the music all attended the denunciation of Israel, while the criticism of Hizballah has another tone. The latter is quietly dropped into the world's press, which, by this point, finds the whole matter no longer, somehow, of moment. After all, there was only one real story: that was the one about very wicked Israel. That was what counted.
Disgust rampant, on a field gules.
Hugh I've taken the time to look into Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and have discovered that muslims have insinuated themselves very deeply into these organizations, just as they have taken over the Non Aligned Movement (of Nations).
I am not one who has beliefs that need reinforcement, therefore I do not spend my time watching or listening to shows, channels, or reading websites or papers of those who share my views...in other words I learn nothing from the choir nor from the preacher.. rather I go out of my way to watch stuff like Arab and Iranian news on Mosaic
I learn things there that I don't learn from Fox, Limpballs, MSNBC, Hannity, Coulter etc.. I learned for instance that muslims are using human rights as another tool in the Jihad.
Human Rights has become just another tool in the worldwide Jihad, the Jihadi's get credibility from the world and the public by posing as human rights activists.
It is way past time that so called human rights organizations are investigated. Oh to display a face of equanimity, they might make a little noise about such things as the death sentence of that Afghan Convert, but when it comes to Islamic violations of human rights they are relatively quiet, low key and ineffectual, be it Iran, Pakistan, and especially Saudi Arabia.
About the only place in the Islamic world where they make any noise at all, (and it is a peep and virtually ignored even by the so called conservative or right wing press) is Sudan and Darfur.
Genoocide going on in Sudan and nary a peep from anyone .. an interesting aspect of the genocide in Darfur is that it is "racial" in nature, that's right Arab muslims who rule Sudan, are waging a genocidal war against black Muslims in Darfur.
Funny thing is, that the Arab Muslims of Sudan are actually negroid, light skinned, mixed race negroids.
Here's a picture of the President of Sudan Omar Hassan El-Bashir This is the face of an "Arab" that is trying to wipe out black muslims of Sudan.
The last two paragraphs are off topic, my point was that human rights organizations and the nations of the Non Aligned Movement, are merely tools of the Jihad.
Why Hugh? Maybe because AI and HRW are running into fundraising problems. I have read that HRW in particular is getting grief from major league donors other than, perhaps, George Soros.
I have no data, so I'm only hazarding a guess that western Jews have been much more significant contributors to both of these organizations than Muslims, who have their own pet "charities". And to have reported on Israel's "war crimes" without reference to the all-important context of Hezbollah operating from residential neighbourhoods, and not wearing uniforms, unless they are stolen from the IDF makes the bias so clear as to beggar belief.
Ironically, both AI and HRW were founded by Jews who were probably very well intended. AI's founder died a couple of years ago, but I have read that HRW's founder is very much alive and not too pleased with Kenneth Roth's directions.
George Soros? The Great and Wise Because Very Rich Man George Soros? The one about whom we are asked to dwell on that wartime past, with his escaping from the Nazis by staying alive in the woods, but are not to notice his singular indifference to the fate of the Jews today? The one who commissions a book on Karl Popper, and makes sure one and all know of his deep philosophical and artistic (or is that one of his wives?) interest in the Open Society, but who is unable to recognize the worst Enemies of that Open Society when they appear, turning meccatropically five times a day, all over the Lands of the Infidels? That George Soros?
Good comments on GEorge Soros. By the way the Secretary GEneral of Amnesty International is Irene Khan, a muslim, a spoiled rich kid from Bangladesh, google Irene Khan, check out Wikipedia.
Amnesty International has changed beyond recognition in the last 25 years and I doubt if any of its founders would recognise it. Its symbol was a candle surrounded by barbed wire and its prestige was considerable.
It used to support prisoners of conscience, men and women jailed for exercising the most basic civil rights such as writing a letter their government objected to. Support groups would take the case of a particular prisoner and write to the prisoner as well as Members of Parliament, Embassies etc. It specifically excluded support for any group implicated in guerrilla warfare or political violence. When, thirty years ago AI was mentioned in a fictional TV play about a guerrilla group it lodged a formal complaint and received an apology.
However about 25 years ago it was taken over by left wing whackos and at the time one MP left citing its new political agenda. Consequently it is now seen as just another leftie pressure group with nothing like its original prestige.
Fred, I would like to see such groups reconstituted by brave and honorable people, and in full accordance with their founding principles, but with a new name. Would be a slap in the face to those farcical Orwellian shells inhabited by the likes of hermit-crab irene khan, who simply has nurtured yet another vehicle for the jihad. This idea applies equally to the U.N. God knows, they are needed amidst the horrors of Darfur and the prisons and graves in Iran.
Hugh is correct that AI’s statement is too little and too late. AI is compromised of members who don’t understand the war with Islam or the workings of Islam. They see only grievances on the part of the non-white, non-Christian, “poor”, oppressed victims of colonialism. Israel with its might surely must be condemned, but a similar rebuke to HZ comes only two weeks later. Nice of them to provide any criticism eh.
OFF TOPIC, BUT RELEVANT: AI CRITICISM OF THE US’ POLICIES IN THE WAR ON TERROR
However, those who argue that AI has no important role to play anymore in that it criticizes, say, the use of torture or other such practices during the time of war, are misguided. Let me first make restate my intention to show no mercy in this war on terror except for the purposes of feigning love of the jihadists and their humanity. (As a non-believer, I would be far more brutal with the jihadists than any believer. I do not fear the wrath of Christ or any other such deity). I am not opposed to attacking Iran or any other nation that poses a cogent danger to the US. My concern is first and foremost that my nation act in its best interest. That aside, let me also make clear that we cannot completely lower ourselves to the level of the enemy (or at least not give the impression that we have done so). To the extent that is not entirely possible during a war, we must strive to at least give the appearance of maintaining some semblance of decency when we are shown none. This is also because this is in large part a war of public opinion worldwide.
Sure, AI’s condemnation of torture practices in the US could be deemed puerile given that these are people who would have preventing us from attacking Iraq (how on wishes we hadn’t [like I had wished]) or even invading basket-case Afghanistan (upon which everyone agreed, did they not?). Not surprisingly, AI surely is opposed to any war, probably even the one in Afghanistan upon which ‘everyone’ agreed. The US, a power so great that its responsibilities span the globe, surely cannot be strapped by rules made by an NGO. Still, the US can use the AI’s criticisms and publicly acknowledge them in part, at least for public relations purposes, which is what we liberals must do when we re-attain power. (But do sufficient numbers of liberals get it?) We must appear benevolent to our “moderate” Moslem friends in the ME all the while being just as cruel to the jihadists when we encounter them. Moreover, if nation states assist these militias – give them aid and comfort - then surely any future government must respond appropriately. No organization, AI included, can expect a nation not to act in its best interests, or in its survival.
By the way, were one to read AI (as I do) and read its criticism of the US, one might conclude that the former Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa) under Kabila is indeed far more advanced in the field of human rights than is the US.
Nothing has changed:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2005/05/006362print.html
See if you can find Terrorism on this list:
Amnesty USA, Topics:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/topics/