Thanks for this reminder.

I will certainly be emailing him asking him to follow the US lead rather than that of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, Nigeria and the other leading lights of the estimable UNHCR.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/09/15/un-human-rights-council-report-distorts-gaza-war/

I once commented that the obvious conclusion to draw from one Amnesty UK report, was that it would be unwise to trust Amnesty UK.

So why should I trust Amnesty about this?

During the 22-day conflict from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, some 1,400 Palestinians and nine Israelis were killed.

I am told that it is the explict goal of Hamas, the rulers of the Gaza Strip, to utterly destroy Israel. Perhaps they were unwise to proclaim this before making sure that they were better armed than the Israelis.

I suggest you watch Netanyahu’s speach to the UN (last week) before you start with the condemnation.

Whatever the otherwise odious Netanyahu might have said, it does not absolve his country of war crimes.

both sides committed war crimes and this cannot be overlooked or forgotten.

Cheeseboard Comment 5:

I take that you have not bothered to read / listen to or watch Netanyahu’s speach.
The bit about how the wartime actions of Churchill and Roosevelt would now be considered is of interest.

As far as him being odious I can’t tell – never been close enough to judge.
However I’m sure you are certain you are right about that as well.

Did you read the mandate of the independent fact finding mission Conor? Or did you check out the sources used to make claims of war crimes? And did you notice that the fact finding teams were led around Gaza by Hamas in their search for evidence?

“Most of the Palestinians killed by Israeli forces were unarmed civilians, including some 300 children”

Minors killed who did not take part in the hostilities, by age and gender
Age Total Boys Girls
Under 6 Total 60 Male 33 Female 27 M/F = 55%
Under 11 Total 119 Male 68 Female 51 M/F = 57%
Under 17 Total 290 Male 195 Female 95 M/F = 67%
Under 18 Total 320 Male 221 Female 99 M/F = 69%

The increase in the total number of casualities between the ages of 11 to 18, compared with from 6 to 11, and the rise in the M/F ratio indicates that HAMAS was using (male) children in combat; itself a war crime and an act that causes children to lose their protected status.

HAMAS, not Israel, are the true war criminals. The instigators of the war and a proclaimed racist, genocidal terrorist organizations who refuse to comply with the Geneva conventions. You support for them is a disgrace Conor.

HAMAS, not Israel, are the true war criminals.

They’re both war criminals – that’s the whole point.

I’ve seen a few posts on this subject today, and on each of them there seem to be a lot of people treating the subject like it was a football match, waving little rattles and and scarves while saying things like Them Hamas are bastards, eh? So if Hamas are bastards, how could the Israeli military have deliberately attacked lots of civilian infrastructure? as if this was a valid point rather than bollocks on stilts.

You support for them is a disgrace Conor.

I think this kind of pisspoor rhetorical wheeze is pretty disgraceful, myself.

David Miliband and war criminal in the same breath? Have you forgotten about his role in relation to flights of extra-ordinary rendition?

anyone going to mention Blair and Campbell?

Perhaps the rat and the cheeseboard would care to read what Col. Richard Kemp had to say about Cast Lead:

“By taking these actions and many other significant measures during Operation Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare.”

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=3026

Apologies, I forgot to include the devastating, argument-flattening rhetorical triumph that is A British general said that the IDF try really hard not to kill civilians while they’re bombing them, ergo the Israelis couldn’t possibly have deliberately targeted civilian infrustructure. Thank God you cleared that one up.

All we need now is for some numbnuts to show up explaining that Israel’s military dominance is so overwhelming that Hamas are forced to fire their missiles at cities, and we’ve got the classic circular argument in which practically everyone is arguing in bad faith.

You want something to blindly and unconditionally support, guys? Your local football club will be glad to take your cash, and everyone standing around you during matches will agree that that was never a penalty and that yes, the referee is totally biased. This also has the added benefit that you’ll be bullshitting everyone about sport rather than murder.

It would be interesting to know a little about the research methods.
1. Do the authors speak arabic?. How did they interview Palestinians? If they used interpreters were they liable to be influenced or subject to pressure from Hamas or Israe?.
2. How did the authors travel around Gaza ? Did Hamas know the people who were interviewed ?
3. What attempts did Hamas and Israel make to allow civilians to leave an area?
4. What are Hamas policies are not firing rockets from the midst of civilians ?
5. Were any of the civilians killed by Hamas or any other goup due to their conflict with the PLO? if there are criminal gangs present ,killing rivals in a time of conflict may be convenient.
Any report should clearly identify the methods used to obtain data and analyse it.
All those involved on the report should publish their full CV including all public comments made. As Sir Humphrey explained to the minister “Once a railway track has been laid there are only two directions in which a train may go”.

I love Flying Rodent…

All those involved on the report should publish their full CV including all public comments made.

Great. That way every comment, every association, every last detail of their lives can be microscopically examined, debated and argued over while we all quietly forget about the report and its awkward truths.

“The carefully argued report, which is consistent with the findings of Amnesty International, concludes that both the Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups committed grave violations of international law including war crimes and, possibly, crimes against humanity.”

Why do right-wing hawks and Israeli cheerleaders think that any criticism at all of Israel is motivated by pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist baby killers, even if the critic clearly states they are not.

Combined with the recent fuss about BBC-bias, there is a definite trend starting to emerge. “If you don’t agree entirely with everything we say, you are biased,” say the right.

Sorry…UNHRC of course!

‘even if the critic clearly states they are not.’

Personally, I’d like to be a bit less reliant on feelings, let alone statements, when working out what actions and policies are likely to help the situation, and which are likely to make it worse.

I don’t particularly get the strategic logic of the ‘lets have a nice clean fight with no nasty business’ argument. What’s the goal, is it likely to be achieved, what will the consequences be?

It is easy to see how such things could do more harm than good. Are there conversations at Hamas strategy meetings that can be paraphrased as:

‘military situation looks bad – maybe we should make peace? ‘

‘No need – the UNHRC are on the case’.

Linking to Harry’s Place cjcjcjcjcjc is never a good idea, although this comments thread is full of bad ideas by people with kneejerk reactions to outing Israel’s approach to Palestine as pretty fucking awful.

“Gary

Why do right-wing hawks and Israeli cheerleaders think that any criticism at all of Israel is motivated by pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist baby killers, even if the critic clearly states they are not.”

Some of us fail to understand why people who count themselves as liberals support a racist, genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic terrorist organization that is in contravention of the UN Convention on Genocide, child soldier and land mines and do all they can to destroy a liberal, democratic state. The fact that these liberals hate the only Jewish state in existence, whilst ignoring the human rights abuses that occur in Arab and Islamic states makes us think you are motivated, not by humanitarianism, but by antisemitic hatred.
So ‘Gary’, just why do you hold HAMAS’s coat in this fight; are they that much better than Israel?
Are they the best organization that the ‘palestinians’ can have to represent their interests?

“The fact that these liberals hate the only Jewish state in existence,”

Why would a liberal support a confessional state of any stripe?

fentonchem, you just rather proved Gary’s argument. Nothing in his post suggested that he supports Hamas.

16. Sy To check for bias. If one of the author’s has made a biased comment they should not be one of the author’s . In the USA, if there was report into the death of an african american person in a police cell; one of the author’s flew a confederate flag from their home and had stated that the KKK was an organisation which no longer was a threat: would that suggest bias?

Charlie2 and your point is?

@24
Obviously I’m in favour of picking non-Nazis, but it sounds like you want to rummage through their wardrobe for signs of tell-tale leather. The UNHRC has a dismal record of admitting tyrants on board, but Israel’s supporters have labelled everyone from Jimmy Carter to Desmond Tutu as anti-semitic. It’s about obfuscation, not clarification, and your call is (I suspect) for more of the same.