UN Report : Israel broke law in flotilla action

[Craig234]

Israel refused to cooperate with the UN inquiry...

That committee that was appointed did not interview anyone from Israel's side.

LOL, if it weren't so harmful.

 

[Orignal Earl]

It's not even "The UN", it's a rogue body inside the UN that's controlled by hostile countries and criticized by the UN itself.

The 56-page report - compiled by a former UN war crimes prosecutor, Desmond de Silva, a judge from Trinidad, Karl Hudson-Phillips, and a Malaysian women's rights advocate, Mary Shanthi Dairiam - accuses Israeli forces of crimes including violating the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression, and of failing to treat prisoners with humanity.

Can anyone show me why/how these people would be biased against Israel?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Can anyone show me why/how these people would be biased against Israel?

Can you show us why they would not be biased towards Israel?

As to the answer to your questions -- take a look at how the UN has voted when it involves Israel and when it involves the Palestinians or Hamas....


If you truly want to know or learn as you claim, then you will not mind looking this subject up on the internet...thank You!

But I would say that you probably already know the answer to your question.

My question why do you hate Israel?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Can anyone show me why/how these people would be biased against Israel?

Wiki

Overview
As of January 24, 2008, Israel had been condemned 15 times in less than two years. By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[37][38] Toward Sudan, another country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern."[37]

The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council’s special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organization of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[39]

[edit]UN Secretaries General
In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[40]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[41]

[edit]United States and UNHRC President
The Council's charter preserves the watchdog's right to appoint special investigators for countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something many developing states have long opposed. A Council meeting in Geneva in 2007 caused controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of abuses, were removed from a list of nine special mandates. The list, which included North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, had been carried forward from the defunct Commission.[42] Commenting on Cuba and Belarus, the UN statement said that Ban noted "that not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

The United States said a day before the UN statement that the Council deal raised serious questions about whether the new body could be unbiased. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent representative at the United Nations, accused the council of "a pathological obsession with Israel" and also denounced its action on Cuba and Belarus. "I think the record is starting to speak for itself," he told journalists.[43][44]

The UNHRC President Doru Costea responded: "I agree with him. The functioning of the Council must be constantly improved." He added that the Council must examine the behaviour of all parties involved in complex disputes and not place just one state under the magnifying glass.[45][46]

[edit]Netherlands
Speaking at the IDC's Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel. "At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva," Verhagen said.[47]

When two UN secretary generals and even HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH - as Anti Israeli as they come - say you're biased, you most likely are.

 

[SamurAchzar]

LOL, if it weren't so harmful.

Whether justified or not - if the Israeli side is not present, then the report is biased and should be treated as such.

This is what it comes to, Craig: the only bodies that care about the flotilla are a country underground Islamization that tries to suck up to Iran, and a council focused on human rights that's run by China, Libya and Saudi Arabia.
I'm pretty confident you're proud of your associates.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Can you show us why they would not be biased towards Israel?

As to the answer to your questions -- take a look at how the UN has voted when it involves Israel and when it involves the Palestinians or Hamas....


If you truly want to know or learn as you claim, then you will not mind looking this subject up on the internet...thank You!

But I would say that you probably already know the answer to your question.

My question why do you hate Israel?

Your answer to my question did not answer anything.
I did look the people up on the internet and could not find anything that would lead me to believe they would be biased against Israel , that's why I asked why you folks do.

I don't know what to say about your *why do you hate Israel?* comment.
What did you call me in the other thread? Stupid...
That probably would describe your comment best.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Wiki



When two UN secretary generals and even HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH - as Anti Israeli as they come - say you're biased, you most likely are.

So your saying that because the Secretary Generals said the Council should not focus so much on Israel, that the findings are wrong?
Show me how the 3 people who wrote this report are wrong and being biased.

Edit- Are you also telling me then that any Jewish folk in this thread are biased and therefore wrong?

 

[Freshgeardude]

So your saying that because the Secretary Generals said the Council should not focus so much on Israel, that the findings are wrong?
Show me how the 3 people who wrote this report are wrong and being biased.

Edit- Are you also telling me then that any Jewish folk in this thread are biased and therefore wrong?

Look at ANY country in the world as hard as the UN looks at israel and you will ALWAYS find a problem.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Look at ANY country in the world as hard as the UN looks at israel and you will ALWAYS find a problem.

That may be, and lots of other countries get hell too. Including the ones that the Council come from.
But we are talking about Israel here, like we do every other day.

 

[SamurAchzar]

So your saying that because the Secretary Generals said the Council should not focus so much on Israel, that the findings are wrong?
Show me how the 3 people who wrote this report are wrong and being biased.

Edit- Are you also telling me then that any Jewish folk in this thread are biased and therefore wrong?

This is a body that's used as a battering ram by anti-Israeli members. Nothing more to it. They wouldn't be any more objective than a republican committee appointed to investigate the healthcare reform.

Together with the lack of Israel's side (for whatever reason) and the footage released by IDF, you'd be hard pressed to accept the findings as objective or truthful. If anything, wait for the real UN committee.

 

[Lemon law]

Sammy, as a generality spouts bullshit by saying, "Whether justified or not - if the Israeli side is not present, then the report is biased and should be treated as such."

Lets take some arbitrary crime photographed for all angles that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that some given defendant guilty. Basically what Sammy asserts that if the guilty defendant boycotts the investigation, the investigation must be biased.

And Israel had taken a previous opposite position, instead of welcoming an independent probe, it demanded only the right to judge itself. The very definition of bias.

The other point to make is that on subsequent flotillas, Israel jammed all communication air waves, so the rest of the world could not monitor independently. So pot meet kettle, but still, IMHO, the fact that the UN commission has ruled the Israeli blockade of Gaza illegitimate, is the more telling point. If the rest of the international community concurs, it will loom huge.

In related news it already September 27'th in Israel, Israel did not extend the settlement freeze, and already Israeli settlers are building new settlements with a passion on disputed land. And now its going to be far more difficult if not impossible for Netanyuhu to get the settler party restraint he calls for.

 

[Orignal Earl]

This is a body that's used as a battering ram by anti-Israeli members. Nothing more to it.

That body appointed those 3 people to handle it, do you have any evidence of the 3 being biased against Israel.

Together with the lack of Israel's side (for whatever reason)

Israel refused, and is taking part in the other inquiry which also involves the UN.
So I'm guessing its findings are also going to be biased and untrue.

 

[Craig234]

Whether justified or not - if the Israeli side is not present, then the report is biased and should be treated as such.

You attacking the report for not interviewing Israel without mentioning Israel refused to participate is like the lawyer for the Menendez brothers saying "Judge, they're orphans."

This is what it comes to, Craig: the only bodies that care about the flotilla are a country underground Islamization that tries to suck up to Iran, and a council focused on human rights that's run by China, Libya and Saudi Arabia.
I'm pretty confident you're proud of your associates.

This is where you slide to scum level.

And even you know that's true.

 

[SamurAchzar]

That body appointed those 3 people to handle it, do you have any evidence of the 3 being biased against Israel.

Do you have any evidence they are not? At least two come from countries that are hostile to Israel.

Israel refused, and is taking part in the other inquiry which also involves the UN.
So I'm guessing its findings are also going to be biased and untrue.

Look, if you want to take seriously a report by a committee that didn't have access to a single Israeli and was appointed by Libya et al, then by all means do. The joke's on you.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Sammy, as a generality spouts bullshit by saying, "Whether justified or not - if the Israeli side is not present, then the report is biased and should be treated as such."

Lets take some arbitrary crime photographed for all angles that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that some given defendant guilty. Basically what Sammy asserts that if the guilty defendant boycotts the investigation, the investigation must be biased.

Funny you should talk about footage, which we've all seen. The bullshit ends with the assertion Israeli soldiers were not in immediate danger. That doesn't reflect what we've all seen, nor does it match the intent of the organizers to send this out as a suicide mission.

And Israel had taken a previous opposite position, instead of welcoming an independent probe, it demanded only the right to judge itself. The very definition of bias.

You and Craig are about the only ones who think this probe is independent. The rest of the world pretty much anticipated this fiasco.

The other point to make is that on subsequent flotillas, Israel jammed all communication air waves, so the rest of the world could not monitor independently. So pot meet kettle, but still, IMHO, the fact that the UN commission has ruled the Israeli blockade of Gaza illegitimate, is the more telling point. If the rest of the international community concurs, it will loom huge.

The question is will they even care? With the "Wolf, Wolf" cries of the UNHRC over Israel no one would take them seriously. Lets monitor what countries say over the next few days and see where the wind is blowing; my guess is that most officials will just ignore this report.

In related news it already September 27'th in Israel, Israel did not extend the settlement freeze, and already Israeli settlers are building new settlements with a passion on disputed land. And now its going to be far more difficult if not impossible for Netanyuhu to get the settler party restraint he calls for.

I agree this is unfortunate, Nethanyahu should have let Abbas dig his own political - or actual - grave by going on with the program and halting everything until the talks implode. Then he could resume building at three times the pace. Oh well.

 

[Craig234]

You and Craig are about the only ones who think this probe is independent. The rest of the world pretty much anticipated this fiasco.

You lie about my position, since I haven't said anything on the topic.

I agree this is unfortunate, Nethanyahu should have let Abbas dig his own political - or actual - grave by going on with the program and halting everything until the talks implode. Then he could resume building at three times the pace. Oh well.

So your issue is they could have built more settlements. You're an agent of evil.

 

[SamurAchzar]

You attacking the report for not interviewing Israel without mentioning Israel refused to participate is like the lawyer for the Menendez brothers saying "Judge, they're orphans."

My point is that it was expected. Again, whether Israel's abstinence is justified or not is besides the point, the report has to be biased even if its members wanted Israel's favor. That's all that matters.

This is where you slide to scum level.

And even you know that's true.

Look at the people you're supporting and tell me who's the scum. You've put yourself proudly alongside the worst of man kind, the Taliban of the Middle East.

 

[SamurAchzar]

You lie about my position, since I haven't said anything on the topic.

It pretty much comes across. Do you think the report is valid? I promise to apologize.

So your issue is they could have built more settlements. You're an agent of evil.

I'm not pro settlements myself, but neither do I think Israel should give anything up before negotiation. Like it or not, it's a bargaining chip. The more settlements, the more power Israel has in future negotiations.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Do you have any evidence they are not? At least two come from countries that are hostile to Israel.

So basically your going to only trust anything from the US and Israel.
Then again that's being biased.

Look, if you want to take seriously a report by a committee that didn't have access to a single Israeli and was appointed by Libya et al, then by all means do. The joke's on you.

Alrighty...

 

[SamurAchzar]

So basically your going to only trust anything from the US and Israel.

Who'd word would you take - on any subject - Libya's or US? It's like an IQ test of a one question really.

 

[Craig234]

It pretty much comes across. Do you think the report is valid? I promise to apologize.

Sorry, you don't get to wrongly say I said something I didn't, and then if you happen to have said what my position is, say 'I didn't do anything wrong.'

You are wrong for inventing a quote regardless what my position is.

Seems to me it's pretty pointless to invest much time for this thread in forming a position on the independence of the report - what good will that do?

I think you will either agree if I say it's not or disagree if I say it is no matter what the facts, so what's the point? (That's not saying you said something you didn't.)

I'm not pro settlements myself

You're the one who said it's unfortunate followed by how they could have built three times as many implying that's why it's unfortunate.

, but neither do I think Israel should give anything up before negotiation. Like it or not, it's a bargaining chip. The more settlements, the more power Israel has in future negotiations.

There are legitimate bargaining chips and illegitimate. If I kidnap your children before the negotiation, ya, it gives me 'bargaining chips', and it's wrong.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Who'd word would you take - on any subject - Libya's or US? It's like an IQ test of a one question really.

You sure want to argue a lot based on opinion.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Sorry, you don't get to wrongly say I said something I didn't, and then if you happen to have said what my position is, say 'I didn't do anything wrong.'

You are wrong for inventing a quote regardless what my position is.

Seems to me it's pretty pointless to invest much time for this thread in forming a position on the independence of the report - what good will that do?

I think you will either agree if I say it's not or disagree if I say it is no matter what the facts, so what's the point? (That's not saying you said something you didn't.)

My most sincere apology on this matter. I must assume that even you think there might be some problem here, but it's just me.

You're the one who said it's unfortunate followed by how they could have built three times as many implying that's why it's unfortunate.

There are legitimate bargaining chips and illegitimate. If I kidnap your children before the negotiation, ya, it gives me 'bargaining chips', and it's wrong.

It's more like "I enter your yard and don't leave until I get what I want".
You and LL and Abbas treat the situation of building as if Israel executes a Palestinian for every brick laid, while in fact it's just a political ladder for the Palestinians to climb down from the tree of talks.

 

[Lemon law]

Well Sammy, without the extension of the settlement freeze, the shit is likely to hit the fan.

Pissing contests between you and I on P&N will not be the decider, we will have to wait for the collective response of the international community.

Its somewhat a question if Israel will get away with it again or if the international community will finally dope slap Israel. Its international actions or lack of them that will decide.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Well Sammy, without the extension of the settlement freeze, the shit is likely to hit the fan.

Pissing contests between you and I on P&N will not be the decider, we will have to wait for the collective response of the international community.

Its somewhat a question if Israel will get away with it again or if the international community will finally dope slap Israel. Its international actions or lack of them that will decide.

I say that nothing will happen but some negligible political wrist slapping. Let's make a bet, $10 through Paypal. Contact your Iranian operator for approval and get back to me.