'Amnesty International biased'

[Phx_Dem]

Amnesty International has been accused of bias and a disproportionate focus on Israel by a Jerusalem-based NGO watchdog on Sunday.

The criticism came ahead of an expected release of an Amnesty annual report on human rights.

"For many around the world, Amnesty International is considered to be a highly reliable and objective source of information on human rights," Gerald Steinberg, Executive Director of NGO Monitor told Ynetnews.

"However, as NGO Monitor has shown, their clear adoption of one sided political bias, and skewed global views mean Amnesty's reports and publications need to subject to the same type of independent questioning and analysis as any political or governmental body."

snip

The study found that "Amnesty International focused disproportionately on condemnations of Israel, far beyond any reasonable distribution of resources in a region marked by fundamental human rights abuses by many repressive regimes and sources of violence."

snip

Responding to NGO Monitor's report, Amnon Vidan, director-general of Amnesty International's Israel branch, said the organization expected Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights than non-democratic regimes.

More at:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3402530,00.html

[Lurking Dem]

1. At least they admit to the double standard.

[pelsar]

3. i agree...

at least they admit to the double standard....


but then again....why does amnesty have a double standard?

[barb162]

2. I agree with that assessment .

They are objective on some matters but not with regard to the above-mentioned.

[The Magistrate]

4. Mr. Vidan, Sir, Had Best Be Announcing He Mis-Spoke Soon

The statement that his organization holds one class of country to a higher standard of respect for human rights than another is in fact a confession the charge made by the N.G.O. Monitor group is sound. If the same standard is not applied to all, condemnations in any particular instance lose most of their force. Human rights groups must maintain nuetrality and impartiality in applying a unitary standard to all, or accept status as mere partisans in particular quarrels, whether international or revolutionary or merely day in and day out police-work and politics.

The practice announced by Mr. Vidar is a pernicious one on several levels. One is that when democratic countries commit violations of human rights, these are generally a good deal less egregious in character and more limited in scope then the violations of human rights non-democratic regimes, or non-state armed bodies, engage in. If the aim of the organization is to alleviate human suffering by calling attention to it, and rallying world opinion against it, this policy amounts to an open declaration that not only will mountains be made out of mole-hills, but that actual mountains will be regarded as mere mole-hills, with the result that the organization employing this policy will render itself ineffective for its stated purpose. It is possible, of course, that such a policy is effectively a confession that the organization cannot achieve any degree of effect in pressuring non-democratic regimes or non-state armed bodies to mend their ways, but this was not true in the days of this organization's founding, and would represent a considerable decay in its dedication to, and steadfastness in, its stated principles and purpose. The whole thing smacks of the hoary jest about the drunk who lost his keys in the alley, but looks for them under the street-lamp because the light is better there....

"A man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what's a Heaven for."

[barb162]

6. Excellent!

As in WOW.

[Phx_Dem]

11. It's hard to see how

Vidar is going to restate his admissions. Not only did he confess that AI holds different countries to different standards, but he further explained that AI uses their resources based partly on where they get the most bang for the buck. I wonder if someone else from AI will be explaining what he "meant".

[Tom Joad]

5. NGO Monitor opposes human rights, not surprising they would attack

Amnesty International.

[The Magistrate]

8. That, Mr. Joad, Compared To the Amnesty International Representative's Statement

That his group employs one standard for some actors and a different standard for others, is of very little interest.

The statement you have made signifies only that the group you denounce does not share your partisan view of the conflict between the people of Israel and Arab Palestine, but everyone here already knew that, and will have discounted already for the refractions you bring to events and actors of that conflict.

Proclaimations of 'support for human rights' can be taken seriously only when they clearly arise from application of a unitary standard to all parties in a conflict, rather than from desire to brandish a rhetorical cudgel on behalf of one side against another.

[pelsar]

15. amnesty admits to a double standard...

which means some groups dont have the right to full human rights.....and this doesnt bother you?

[Eugene]

7. NGO Monitor makes a few questionable comparisons in its quest for balance.

In the article, NGO Monitor complains that Amnesty complains
about Israel more than it does about Sudan. Amnesty openly
discusses whether Sudan's actions constitute a genocide.
NGO Monitor chooses to overlook magnitude in favor of
quantity.

NGO Monitor also complains that Amnesty failed to condemn
the Hezbollah raid against Israeli soldiers while it condemned
Israel's actions against non-combatants. Attacking soldiers is
an act of war. Whatever the wrongness of the war, violence
against troops is not a by itself a human rights violation.
Targeting civilians and indiscriminate fire are war crimes as
well as human rights violations.

As far as double standards go, gross human rights violations
like killing of innocents, hostage taking, the use of human
shields must be condemned. Not pointing out violations by
the "good guys" because they aren't so bad would be
hypocritical.

NGO Monitor has a political agenda of it own, rooting out
perceived anti-Israel agendas in the NGO community.
Its pronouncements about objectivity or bias should be
taken with caution.

[Shaktimaan]

9. I think the fact that we are even

able to have a discussion as to whether Amnesty is more critical of Sudan or Israel, where there is evidence to support either side is tantamount to demonstrating their double standard. What's going on in Sudan is of an entirely different caliber and there's just no way that one could justify spending greater resources investigating Israel unless some kind of bias exists. Saying that the content of the reports judges Sudan more harshly than Israel seems counter intuitive to their mission. If an area seems to be rife with numerous and extremely serious crimes against humanity then why would Amnesty choose to spend less time there in favor of allocating more resources somewhere far less critical that is already recieving plenty of attention? I mean, really! They have MORE reports on Israel than Sudan?

OK, forget about Sudan, which is just one of the most egregious examples of human rights abuses going on currently. Let's look at an old standard like Saudi Arabia who received a mere TWO reports. Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist organization guilty of attacking embassies, mounting constant attacks against Israeli civilians for years without any valid cause and (probably worst of all) stationing their military equipment such as Katyusha launchers within civilian homes and villages, ensuring that any response to their attacks would result in massive civilian casualties. They received 17 reports.

And despite what Amnesty may think, it is against international law to take hostages, regardless if they are civilain or military. A hostage is not the same thing as a POW. And unilaterally attacking Israel on their own soil without provocation, killing soldiers, is also against International Law. Especially since their diversion was to rocket a civilian town.

But all of this is icing because it seems that Amnesty has admitted to a bias themselves.

Responding to NGO Monitor's report, Amnon Vidan, director-general of Amnesty International's Israel branch, said the organization expected Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights than non-democratic regimes.

"You can't take samples of Amnesty's reports based on word counts," Vidan said. "Factually, the picture given in the NGO Monitor report is incorrect. Sudan does not receive less attention than Israel. In principle, Amnesty's treatment of different crises is based on different parameters, such as our ability to influence, and need to present issues to media," he added.


OK, so democratic states are judged by a different standard. Because they are not ruled by despots they are "expected" to be better. And, more interestingly, since they are free societies Amnesty can have more INFLUENCE over their policies. Presumably, in democracies it is also more easy to conduct investigations and disperse it to the media without getting arrested or thrown out of the country or executed. So, Amnesty tends to give more attention to the nations that need it LESS because it is easier work reporting on their problems and having an effect. I've actually said this for a long time, that it is Israel's relatively high level of freedoms and commitment to democracy that paradoxically makes it a more likely target for organizations like this to criticize. No one doubts that Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Yemen or China or just about every other nation in Asia is far worse than Israel in terms of human rights. But how are you gonna go walk into China and go around interviewing people with your entourage of "guards" who tell you where you can and where you can't go and toss you out of the country if they suspect that they're not going to like your conclusions? You can't. So you go to Israel.

But I never thought that Amnesty would just come out and say it like that! I also never thought they would say something this obnoxious...

I would suggest NGO Monitor address the content of documents, rather than count their words. That way they will be able sympathize with the suffering of non-Jews," Vidan said.

Wow! Does he know that Israel is not just comprised of Jews but of many different groups? He seems really mad. And like he's kind of a dick. Not really how I pictured the President of Amnesty International.

And we are not saying that they can not criticize Israel at all. But to choose to single them out constantly while ignoring far worse events and nations over and over again makes no sense if your goal is similar to Amnesty's mission. NGO monitor's bias is less important. Because they are not AMNESTY FREAKIN' INTERNATIONAL! If this report is factually accurate, and I believe that it is, then Amnesty is doing a grave injustice to their name and cause.

We should not apply laws differently for different people. What Amnesty is doing is tantamount to saying that a Palestinian's rights are inherently worth spending more time protecting than a Chinese person's.

[breakaleg]

12. small point...

Doesn't Israel operate over-flights setting off sonic booms into Lebanese airspace and isn't this a violation of international law? And aren't these sonic booms meant to terrorize the population of Lebanon? So, how can you say that Hezbollah wasn't provoked? If Israel invaded their airspace with the intent to terrorize the civilian population then surely they can respond can't they?

I don't see what the big deal is with expecting democratic states to adhere to a certain standard that other non-states may not. Isn't that something that goes hand in hand with being a democracy?

[pelsar]

19. they're called recon flights..

and they discover where the long range missiles are that were meant to land on Tel Aviv....which didnt get a chance because they were destroyed.

BUT a good example of many peoples attitude here are the missiles that have been landing on sederot and the silence that we have heard. I guess cause the palestenians (and their supporters understand this) dont live in a democracy and they just "dont understand" that trying to kill civilians isnt acceptable. Same for hizballa...i guess they dont understand that its bad to kill civilians and their supporters seem to think that they cant understand since they dont live in a democracy.

for us?....the overflights keep many of us alive. Though we understand that for others they prefer the missiles....

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Speaking of attitudes here...

BUT a good example of many peoples attitude here are the missiles that have been landing on sederot and the silence that we have heard.

I don't know who this collective 'we' are, but I have said clearly that the firing of missiles on civilians is a violation of international law....

Speaking of silence, I have yet to see you speak out against any violation of international law that Israel has committed. In fact, you've defended most violations...

[pelsar]

59. intl law violations by israel...

no i never have spoken here about israeli violations of intl law...

to begin with the example of the "wall" being illegal is a very good example for me of the "farce" of intl law. Before that wall, we had many dead israelis. Adhering to intl law would have cost israeli lives.

Same for the overflights over lebanon...all illegal. Yet it was they that discovered the hidden long range missiles that would have been launched at Tel Aviv....again adhering to intl law would have been costly in terms of israeli lives. (mine?)

second: i believe that its the geneva convention that makes it clear that a fighting force that wears no uniform, that fights from civilian areas is the guilty party as far as the ensuing civilian casualties that result from any fighting.

that leaves just "disproportionate force"......i'm a firm believer in using over powering force when involved in combat....i dont believe in giving the other guy a chance to kill me, if i can avoid that risk....so measuring that disproportionate force is a pretty vague concept. An Abomb to destroy the second floor of a building would be a good example...a tank shell would be a good choice as would a 500lb dropped from a F16. (ones viewpoint tends to change when one is getting shot at...)

________

that leaves vague violations such as sonic booms (which was an attempt to warn the PA), artillery in open fields...all of which was no more then wasted energy.....
once is was clear they werent going to affect anything they were stopped....they were useless, but they were attempts to avoid other more violent means, so i can hardly criticize such attempts.

that leaves as far as i am concerned the cluster bombs that israel shot into S. Lebanon the last days of the war.....again was hizballa there?...if there wasnt any tactical reason then yes, i would say it was illegal...but i dont have the knowledge of the troop movements in the area.

[Shaktimaan]

27. Good Lord, are you serious?

Do you honestly believe that Israel is just flying over Lebanon at supersonic speed creating sonic booms so that they can terrorize Lebanese civilians?

Really? Is this honestly, for real what you think?

May I ask you, why the hell would Israel be doing that?

There's no way you could possibly, actually think what you wrote here, you're taking the piss, aren't you? Are people somewhere really saying this? That Israel is trying to terrorize the Lebanese by making loud noises with their jets, so Hezbollah must naturally rise to defend their civilians against them. Anyway, NO, they aren't allowed to respond. They aren't allowed to exist! Their very existing as a group at all, let alone arming themselves is a violation of quite a few standing truces regarding Lebanon. Besides, I would think you would be in favor of the flyovers. It means better intellegence and less civilians will be killed when Hezbollah eventually attacks Israel again. (You know it is Hezbollah, not Israel who never met their requirements under the UN treaty, right? That Hezbollah never complied and Israel did. You should know that if you don't.)

And, no. The job of Amnesty is to draw attention to Human Rights abusers in order to stop them. It is not more acceptable to kill, rape, torture and slaughter people just because they are not part of a democracy. When Amnesty decides to spend the resources to research 48 (or whatever it was) reports on Israel and none on many areas that have truly hideous human rights violations going on they are neglecting to do their job. On an ethical note, the law should judge people and nations by the same standards. It makes no sense to hold countries who are doing the least for human rights to a lower standard. That amounts to a reward for despots who quash democratic stirrings. The worse a despot you are, the less accountable you are. I do not think that is a good plan.

By the way, some of the nations or groups reported on are also democracies, such as Lebanon. Still AI isn't nearly as interested in them as they are in Israel. There is just no defense for having different sets of rules for different people. It is prejudicial and antithetical to AE's cause.

[Tom Joad]

37. The sonic booms were deliberate effort to terrorize the Palestinians in order to

obtain a political goal.
I think any "recon flight" could have been done at subsonic speeds. I never heard even Israel claim these were recon flights. Not to mention that these flights take place at night, to disrupt sleep, and make it all the more disturbing.

In fact, i wonder if any recon flights could be done at supersonic speeds.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1453692

It's Israel's latest weapon: Without notice, an Israeli jet fighter flies low over the densely populated Gaza Strip, breaking the sound barrier.

The massive sonic boom often breaks windows, shakes entire apartment buildings and terrifies the people of Gaza.

Just about every night for the last five months, 10-year-old Basma Abid Adiam has had trouble sleeping.

Her father says during the day she often seems distant. Basma's problems started when the Israeli air force began breaking the sound barrier almost nightly over her home.

The almost nightly sonic booms are the Israeli air force's attempt to turn the Palestinian population against the militants in Gaza and help stop the attacks.

Targeting innocent civilians violates the Geneva Conventions. Both Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups have asked the Israeli High Court to stop the air force from this practice.
____________________

Notice nothing of this imaginative and creative nonsense about this being "recon flights".
BTW, i believe the sonic booms have stopped, thanks to the efforts of Amnesty International, B'Tselem (also attacked regularly in this forum) and many others. So those throwing out this fiction regarding these being vitally necessary recon flights will have to explain why it has been possible to stop the sonic booms. Israel decided it doesn't need to look anymore?

[oberliner]

40. Gaza is not Lebanese air space

I think two different activities are being confused.

[Tom Joad]

42. That's true, Gaza and Lebanon not the same, but the fact remains,

especially for Gaza, the IAF did the sonic booms deliberately. It had a traumatic effect on children, and despite what some may believe or express, Palestinians do love their children.

I never saw it defended as "recon flights" until now.

[eyl]

44. You're confusing

overflights of Gaza with recon flights over Lebanon.

[breakaleg]

51. Am I?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1778286.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=13530


This is in 2004:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/7acf9cf91379fa6b85256ee1005556fa!OpenDocument

"5. A cycle of disruptions and armed exchanges across the Blue Line commenced on 5 May. Israel carried out more than 20 air sorties over Lebanon, a number of which generated sonic booms. Hezbollah subsequently fired several anti-aircraft rounds from its positions near Shaqra, Hula and Alma ash Shab, with shrapnel landing near Shelomi. The Lebanese army responded also, firing anti-aircraft rounds from near Jezzin. IDF reacted with air strikes against two Hezbollah positions south-east of Tyre."

[Shaktimaan]

56. Do you view

Israel's violations by way of overflights to be the equivalent of Hezbollah's violations like refusing to disarm, importing quantities of new weapons and installing them throughout southern Lebanon?

[breakaleg]

57. You said

Hezbollah unilaterally attacked Israel on their own soil without provocation. I'm just pointing out that was false.

As for which violation is more serious? You will likely claim Israel's needs rank higher since their country is in danger. Refresh my memory on what happened last summer? Whose county was destroyed by whom? Who is it that really needs protection?

Frankly, if a state is going to habitually jump up and down screaming foul, then they had better be beyond reproach. If Israel expects everyone else to obey certain laws, treaties, agreements, then they had better do the same. And until they do, I have no patience for their whining.

[eyl]

60. Do you want me to start listing

Hizbullah attacks against Israel prior to the kidnapping? It's not like they were just minidng their own business until the Israeli recon flights - which were, naturally, without any other reason than to humiliate Lebanon* - provoked them beyond all reason to attack.

*In case anyone misunderstood, :sarcasm:

[Shaktimaan]

61. Oh REALLY?

Frankly, if a state is going to habitually jump up and down screaming foul, then they had better be beyond reproach. If Israel expects everyone else to obey certain laws, treaties, agreements, then they had better do the same. And until they do, I have no patience for their whining.

So then, you have no patience for any of the problems faced by the Palestinians? You seem to think that they should just stop whining about Israel. I mean, if they expect Israel to obey certain agreements then they should probably do the same, right? Since the Palestinians have never once kept an agreement and have broken scores more laws than Israel could ever hope to, their whining must be all the more disgusting to you, no?

Or do you have different rules for different people, Breakaleg? Seems that there's a lot of that going around lately.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

10. Some Of The Points You Make, Sir, Have Less Weight Than You May Suppose

You are quite correct that attacks against combatants are hardly crimes or violations of human rights. Amnesty Internation should waste no time in condemning such acts, and the N.G.O. Monitor group is foolish to castigate it for not doing so. However, the article you have linked to comprises an account of military actions by the various sides, headed by details of an Israeli strike against combatant members of Hamas. That non-combatants were also harmed in this is unfortunate, but not on its face a crime of war, and to describe this sort of thing as 'the killing of innocents' is mere bombast in appeal to emotion, rather than a serious statement of fact, or law.

Your appeal to magnitude of charge rather than quantity of denunciation in regard to the contrast between attentions given Darfur and Israel v. Palestine is interesting, and has some merit. But quantity, as Lenin said, has a quality all its own, and certainly what is more frequently denounced will command greater attention, and must consume greater energy on the part of the denouncer, than what is denounced less frequently, even if in more strenuous terms. It would, after all, be child's play to compile and relay to the press daily accounts of each newly heard of crime of torturous murder and rape in Darfur, as seems routinely to be done over incidents much less grave in nature occuring as part of the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestine, and were such done regarding the former, it would dwarf both in volume and horror anything related concerning the latter. Why this is not done is a matter for legitimate question, partricularly in light of an Amnesty International representative's frank statement that his organization does not hold authoritarian regimes, such as that in Sudan, to the same standards as it holds democratic governements like that of Israel, in denouncing violations of human rights.

Amnesty International is, in my view, a most worthy and valuable organization, and it is to be hoped its leadership responds appropriately to this representative's statement, and either makes clear this is not its policy, or recognizes that this policy is a very poor one that will be changed forthwith.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. And Some Of Your Points Also Carry Little Weight...

This is aimed at all of you in this thread who brushed aside the sheer hypocrisy of a blatantly biased group accusing AI of bias. If you were familiar with the workings of this group and who is involved with it, you would have noticed that it regularly accuses any NGO that dares to voice criticism of Israel as being biased...

I'm a member of Amnesty International, and that's because it is a very worthy and valuable organisation, and it does address itself to human rights violations around the world. I bet if I were one of those pathetic folk who base Amnesty's work on doing a word count and whining, I could whine my heart out that Amnesty International wrote more in one year about the Australian government's refugee policy than it did about what's been going on in Zimbabwe. Clearly AI is biased against Australia!! :sarcasm:

Take a look at AI's homepage, Magistrate. Notice what's sitting there in a prominent position. It's not Israel, but Sudan. Also, as a member, I've been under the impression that Amnesty's work involves influencing governments to change their policies, which is why as a member I would be totally opposed to AI changing from an organisation that tries to influence governments that it hopes will take notice of public pressure to one that just shrieks condemnation without trying to change anything...

btw, I live in a democracy and I hold the country I live in to a much higher standard than I do a country where there's no democracy. I expect better from my country than some tinpot dictatorship, and I expect that public pressure will have effect on my country's government, while no public pressure is going to affect the tinpot dictatorship. If democracies can't be brought under the spotlight for their violations of human rights abuses, then there is no point to an organisation like AI existing. And what I find amusing is that some of those who complain about Amnon Vidan saying that there's an expectation that democratic countries behave better than Sudan (a comment that read with the rest of his comment in the article is something I wholeheartedly agree with) are inclined to use the argument (I've seen in happen here in threads about censorship, etc) that Israel is a democracy and should be treated at a higher standard (eg ignore what Israel is doing) than undemocratic states. How is that any different?

Amnesty International is a valuable and non-partisan organisation that should be above the smears of biased and one-sided 'Don't Ever Criticise Israel!!' idiots like this NGO Monitor. My only criticism of AI in this instance is that they wasted their time rebutting these fools. They'll only be happy if representatives of AI like Amnon Vidan are replaced with the likes of the highly unbiased Dore Gold ;)

[Jim Sagle]

16. Dore Gold works for me. Hell, being from Illinois, I'd settle for Dick Durbin.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Thanks for proving my point, Jim

:)

[Jim Sagle]

22. I didn't even see your point. My point (or one of them) is that I'm a Democrat.

Just to draw a contrast.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I knew you wouldn't. And what has you being a Democrat got to do with anything? n/t

[pelsar]

17. at lest we have the double standard admitted to...

live in a democracy and I hold the country I live in to a much higher standard than I do a country where there's no democracy.

higher standard...means there is also a "lower standard"....which means two standards.

this is good....so does that mean sending rockets into sederot is "acceptable" or just into the surrounding fields....I mean if the palestenians dont have a democracy and one has a lower standard for them (lower expectations) that means somethings are ok for them to do and not ok for israel to do.

is kidnapping ok?..shooting journalist? children?...how does this dual standard actually work?

perhaps a list of what the palestenians can do and what the israelis cant do would be appropriate?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Yr going back on ignore after this thread...

Great to see that you took advantage of being put on ignore to use it to accuse me of things I haven't said or admitted to. For the record, and for anyone who does believe in reading posts and not trying to morph what people say into ugly things that they don't, I don't hold double standards because I do hold democracies to higher standards than tinpot dictatorships. Nowhere did I say or do I believe that this gives tinpot dictatorships a free pass to commit human rights abuses, and as I've posted many times that I oppose attacks on civilians and it doesn't matter whether they're Israeli or Palestinian, yr 'questions' are incredibly pathetic and inflammatory, or at the very least show an unwillingness to take in what people say in previous threads in this forum...

I don't know how much more dumbed down I can make this, but let's give it a try. I do not expect democracies to commit human rights violations. I do expect that tinpot dictatorships will commit human rights violations(and for the folk who have trouble comprehending basic concepts that means I oppose the human rights violations they commit but am not surprised that they commit them). I do expect democracies to be prone to public pressure to stop human rights abuses. I do not expect that tinpot democracies give a flying fuck about public pressure. Clear enough for you?

But don't take any notice of what I say. You never have and you never will. Instead just pretend I've never said I'm opposed to attacks on Israeli civilians and hit me with a bunch more 'questions' like 'so is it aceptable to fire rockets at Israelis? is shooting Israeli children acceptable?

[pelsar]

33. and a response....for the "community"...

in fact i agree with you:

I do not expect democracies to commit human rights violations. I do expect that tinpot dictatorships will commit human rights violations(and for the folk who have trouble comprehending basic concepts that means I oppose the human rights violations they commit but am not surprised that they commit them).

and i expect my country, israel to live up to the democratic ideals......that does not mean however that the palestenain society gets a "pass". I may expect them (as i see that you do) to not honor human rights, for various reasons but that in no way gives them the right to do so. Nor does that mean they should not be held to the very same standard that i believe israel should be held to

and that is the difference between us.



if you disagree, perhaps you can explain why the palestenain society cant be held in principle to the very same standard as israel..what is preventing them from doing so?..that seems to be the core of the problem....here.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. What's the difference between us?

and i expect my country, israel to live up to the democratic ideals......that does not mean however that the palestenain society gets a "pass". I may expect them (as i see that you do) to not honor human rights, for various reasons but that in no way gives them the right to do so. Nor does that mean they should not be held to the very same standard that i believe israel should be held to

and that is the difference between us.

Read what I've been saying very carefully and explain to me what the difference between us is supposed to be...

[pelsar]

38. expectations...

as i understand it your saying that whereas human rights are universal but some societies (tin-pot dictators) just cant be expected to respect human rights as democractic country, therefore AI, which has limited resources and wants the most "bang for the buck"will concentrate where it can expect some results....democracies.
I do not expect that tinpot democracies give a flying fuck about public pressure.

I'm saying i dont accept that. Its not relevant to me what one is "too expect" out of a dictatorship from an intl human rights organization. They are to be apolitical and human rights have but a single expectation....to be respected. It is irrelvant if the abuser is from a dictatorship or democracy. Further more the measuring stick should not be where its easier to get information etc, it should be who is the greater abuser...they should get the more "words" and resources.

that i believe is the difference between our viewpoints.
______

to attach it to the I/P conflict. If the PA cant be expected to live up to the single standard of human rights, then what other western democratic values are they not expected to live up to?

and i would love to know what a lesser expectation translates into?


(and i have to run out now...but would certainly like to continue this, since i think its the core of our disagreements)

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

46. how does one have two different expectations...

and one standard?

at least thats what you seem to be saying. Anyway you try to explain it, your expecting less from Group A than Group B.....in terms of human rights thats simply wrong.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. There goes Ignored talking to me again...

;)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrewL]

26. Relating to differing standards of human rights.

I hold America(my country) to a far higher standard then say North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or hell dozens of other countries; because i believe Americas better then committing an anything even approaching the least of the crimes that many others do.

However a human rights organization MUST be committed to Universal Human Rights, to say that a violation in North Korea doesn't warrant as much condemnation as the same violation in America, Brittan, or Israel totally discredits the organization. It is as if someone were to say that one people or another doesn't deserve to vote, that human rights are not universal. It is a fact that, following Moynihan's law, that the freer and more open the society the greater the cries of abuse...because it is easier to uncover abuses and much safer to criticize as their is no threat in a free society of being disappeared or killed by the government for their criticism. If amnesty does this it runs into the threat of appearing to pretend that both sides in a conflict are equally bad, that firing rockets with the sole purpose of indiscriminately killing civilians is no worse, or even better, then accidentally killing civilians that were by the rocket launch sites by design of the launchers, or claiming that the annoyance of sonic booms is as bad as deliberate premeditated death of innocents.

Human Rights must be universal, moral relativism has very poor predecessors, Imperialists of the 19th century claimed that the various natives didn't need the freedom of speech or other rights that Britons took for granted because they were 'lesser breeds without the law' communists of the twentieth century dismissed the freedoms of the middle and upper class because of the suffering of the workers. Explain how a double standard by amnesty is any more defensible then that of racist imperialist or the murderous communist? How is the death of thousands in the Sudan or the imprisonment and starvation of millions in North Korea, any less horrific, or as horrific, or anywhere near as bad, as the inconveniencing of people by sonic booms or the creation of check points. How is it worse that America holds 300+ people in Guntanamo, then Kim Jong Il holding hundreds of times the number?

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Amnesty International doesn't have different standards...

If Amnesty International didn't say anything about human rights abuses around the globe, then I'd think they do hold double standards, but they don't do anything of the sort. They believe human rights are universal, something which this NGO Monitor and its supporters don't appear to believe...

[pelsar]

30. what to argue?...the guy admits it...

Responding to NGO Monitor's report, Amnon Vidan, director-general of Amnesty International's Israel branch, said the organization expected Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights than non-democratic regimes.

"higher standard"...means there is also a lower standard....... 1 + 1 = 2

[Violet_Crumble]

31. He EXPECTS democratic states to abide by a higher standard of respect...

What about that sentence isn't computing? You don't expect them to abide by a higher standard of respect for human rights. Well, that's strange because you argued in a thread about censorship in Israel that because Israel was a democracy it made censorship different than in a nondemocratic country. Someone who argues that sort of thing is setting different standards of behaviour for countries depending on whether they're democracies or not, whereas AI is saying they expect better behaviour from some states than they do from others. 1 + 1 = 2 and all that stuff...

[pelsar]

34. expect?

An intl organization that is promoting human rights for all as a given right (which in fact i agree with) does not have the luxuary of different expectation when it comes to human rights. They are supposed to be universal and that means the same expectations.

(the censorship thread you mentioned..i dont recall...a link?)

[Violet_Crumble]

35. They expect democratic countries to respect human rights more than nondemocratic ones...

What about that sentence are you having so much trouble understanding?

I'll jog yr memory about that thread. It was one where after a bunch of threads about censorship in Muslim countries where you'd loudly condemned them for censorship, you then defended censorship of a display that was being put on in Israel...

[pelsar]

47. and that is wrong

they expect democratic countries to respect human rights more than nondemocratic ones...

...and why do they have those lesser expectations?.....just becuase AI "believes" they nondemocratic ones cant make the standard, they then "lower it"?....i'm sure the citizens of those countries agree with AI....so much for universal rights for all.


____
the censorship thread...you'll have to jog my memory a bit better, since i "almost" fanatically pro free speach on an intl level, though i do believe in local communities setting up local standards within limits (perhaps thats what your talking about?)

[Tom Joad]

41. I think part of the obvious flaw of the NGO Monitor attack on human rights

is that a large part of their criticism is that they think by counting the number of reports put out by AI on Israel and the number of reports put out regarding Sudan for example, that this somehow proves double-standards.
I think what it reports should be actual criteria.

It does have reports on human rights violations carried out by Sudan, and i suspect it has very harsh criticism for its practices.

I think its not that they believe the victims of different nations violations matter more or less, but they also must think of the value of making these reports.

I don't think North Korea would change its ways if AI just put out double the number of reports on it(i am sure AI says plenty about North Korea already), it already is really isolated. Is there any nation that would refuse to sell military arms to Korea if Amnesty International put out just one more report on its dismal human rights record?

The US, Israel, Canada, Australia... their elite do see a need for good PR, both for domestic and international consumption. (What newspaper in north Korea is going to carry a report from Amnesty International.... would it make a difference if there were ten critical reports on North Korea... still, there is little hope that N. Korea policy would change on account of Amnesty Int'l reports)

So naturally Cheney, for example, gets hot under the collar when they put out a report on US torture of prisoners. He doesn't ignore it, he can't ignore it, the press here can ask questions about it. He just does what the NGO Monitor does, and attacks Amnesty International.

[The Magistrate]

43. None Of This, Ms. Crumble, Addresses Any Portion Of My Comments

It was a spokesman for Amnesty International who made the statement different standards were employed in judging violators of human rights. That statement is wholly independent of any activity by any other group. My intitial comments addressed only the obvious consequences of that statement by an Amnesty International spokesman, and my further comments, that you have chosen to reply to, engaged only points of military actions aimed at combatants, and questions of differential coverage. Indeed, they contained my view of Amnesty International as a fine organization, and some criticism of the N.G.O. Monitor group.

You are free to state, as you do above, that you employ stricter standards in judging some countries, your own included, than you do in judging other countries, and non-state armed bodies, regarding violations of human rights. But in all instances where different standards are employed, there must be question regarding the motivation behind their employment. Different persons employ different standards to different purposes. Sec. Kirkpatrick, under Reagan, famously stated that she employed different standards for condemning abuse of prisoners, according to whether the abusers were anti-Communist or Communist, and would regard identical acts, if carried out by the former, as legitimate, but worthy of condemnation if carried out by the latter. That is probably not an employment of different standards you would approve of, but it is not possible to differentiate it categorically from the sort of differential standards you do approve of: they are exactly the same thing, simply turned in a different direction. The employment of different standards for condemnation is a very slippery slope, that will always tend to lessen the weight of any condemnation uttered by a person or organization that employs them.

The 'more should be expected of a democracy' line carries very little weight with me, as it is much too apt as a cover for minimizing or ignoring the mis-deeds of authoritarian regimes and non-state armed bodies. It essentially guarantees a greater weight of denunciation will be brought against a democracy involved in a conflict with an authoritarian regime, or with non-state armed bodies. This must tend to distort the accuracy with which the conflict is viewed and described, and what is inaccurately viewed cannot be justly understood.

At the most profound level, holding one category of human actor to a higher standard than another is tantamount to a declaration the persons held to the lower standard are inferior to those to whom the higher standard is applied. It is saying that they are less capable of moral behavior, less able to abide by laws and ethical strictures, and that accordingly, allowance must be made for these deficeits that persons of more worthy, more fully human natures, cannot avail themselves of when they behave poorly.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. I'm Pretty Sure It Did...

Which is why I plonked it there in reply to yr post. Though I did point out that I was addressing what I had to say at quite a few people who had posted in this forum and not specifically at you :)

I think you've fallen into the trap of confusing the employment of different standards with expecting more of a democracy when it comes to the respect of human rights. They're two different things, and if AI were to actually employ different standards when it came to human rights violations (eg saying it was okay for one party to do it but not another) then I wouldn't support AI. I don't know any other way to describe how I feel than using an analogy. As with most analogies it's nowhere near perfect, but hopefully it will give you an idea about how I feel about expectations and why I support what the AI guy said:

There's two children who've been caught by the cops throwing stones through windows of houses. One of those children is mine. I expected better of her because she's come from an environment where she was taught right from wrong and the other kid comes from a shit environment where the parents were off at the pub every waking moment and there was no parental guidance. While it's no surprise the other kid broke windows, it is a shock that my child would, and I'm appalled at her actions far more than I am with the other kid. But when it comes to whether or not I find it acceptable for any kid to go around breaking windows, I don't make distinctions and believe they all should be held accountable for their actions and punished. That's not holding anyone to a higher standard, all it's doing is displaying a completely understandable belief that those who are well-behaved for the most part tend to shock people more when they go off the rails....

Could you point out any examples of where AI's focus on the Middle East has distorted the accuracy of how the conflict is viewed and described?

[eyl]

48. Well, as a member of AI,

do you want your organization judged by the standard of NGO Monitor? :)

I think it's important to make two distinctions. The first one is between double expectations and double standards. The first are quite legitimate - I expect more from Israel than from, say, Saudi Arabia, just like, on an individual level, I would expect more from a generally law-abiding citizen than from a drug dealer. But when coming to actually judge actions, what we employ are not expectations, but standards - and those must be the same for everyone, if the organization employing them is making any pretension at being just and/or evenhanded.

The second distinction is scope. As a private individual, you are perfectly both within your rights and justified in focusing your attention only on particular conflicts, locations, or issues - whether those are the Israeli-Arab conflict, actions of Australia, labor disputes, whatever. This is both because no-one has the right to tell you what to focus on, and for the practical reason that a private individual cannot focus on everything. However, that is not true for an organization, such as AI, which claims to advocate for human rights worldwide* (unlike organizations such as Betselem, who's avowed purpose is to focus on human rights violations only in this particular conflict).

Mind you, I can understand why AI focuses on democratic regimes - I imagine it's much more frustrating (as well as safer and easier) to push for change in such countries. But that doesn't excuse them - the majority of their effort should go to authoritarian regimes, both because the human rights violations there tend to be much worse (both in magnitude and quantity) and because there is less chance the "locals" will be able to do anything themselves.



*BTW, this is also where charges (in my case, anyway) of double standards against the various unions which organized or tried to organize boycotts of Israel came from.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. There's nothing I really disagree with in yr post, eyl...

Though I'm jealous that you managed to put so clearly what I'd been having trouble articulating in this thread, and that's the distinction between double expectations and double standards...

I don't think AI can be accused of ignoring or minimising the human rights violations of either side in the I/P conflict. When I first started getting involved in discussing the conflict, what struck me about AI was that they pointed out human rights violations on both sides, and I've continued to be impressed by the way they do focus on both Israelis and Palestinian civilians in this conflict....

[eyl]

53. I guess what most annoys me

is when others (not necessarily in AI) start throwing accusations based on how many times AI* has "cited" Israel, when the numbers are actually not relatively indicative.

My main criticism of AI*, actually, isn't that their reports are biased, or even that they focus more on democratic regimes than on others, though - as I noted above - I think the latter is problematical. The main problem is that they base many of their criticisms on interpretations of international law which I believe to be unjustifiably maximalist, and sometimes seem to suffer from tunnel vision regarding it.

*and other HR organizations

[bemildred]

54. Well put, both posts.

It is worth pointing out that NGO watch is guilty precisely of what it accuses AI of, that it focusing entirely on Israel. Actually more so, as it makes no pretense of being interested in anything else.

Or else one can just admit that focusing on one issue more than others does not in itself constitute bias.

[eyl]

55. Well, not really

it's quite acceptable for an organization to focus only on one specific subject (see my example of Betselem above). Where it becomes problematical is when that organization focuses only on one issue while professing to deal with a variety of issues.

So it there would be no problem for NGO Watch to focus exclusively on Israel if that is their avowed purpose. Skimming over their web page, however, I also see items regarding Russia, global warming, and other issues besides Israel.

[bemildred]

58. Oh, you are right.

Thank you for correcting me. I was mislead by the particular page I looked at.

This was interesting too:

"A PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AND THE HERITAGE SOCIETY".

An NGO that "watches" NGOs. One has to wonder who "watches" them.

[eyl]

52. Oops, typo

that shoud be "much less frustrating"

[pelsar]

25. so what does a double standard actually mean?

for the I/P conflict. The palestenains dont live in a democracy so does this mean they can violate human rights of israelis with impunity?

for those who agree with amnestys stand how does this translate?

are kassams on sederot acceptable?
kidnapping israeli soldiers?
suicide bombers?
Can palestenains shoot up ambulances and israelis cant?


i'm rather confused as to which actions are accetable for the palestenians vs the israels....that is afterall the definition of a double standard. (er higher and lower standard)

[Englander]

50. Israel and the O/T: An ongoing human rights crisis

There appears to be no end in sight to the human rights crisis which has been unfolding in the context of the Palestinian uprising (known as the al-Aqsa intifada) against Israeli occupation, which started on 29 September 2000.

More than 2,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of them unlawfully, by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), who routinely use F16 fighter jets, helicopter gunships and tanks to bomb and shell densely populated Palestinian residential areas. The victims included some 380 children . Some 100 individuals have been killed in targeted state assassinations. In the course of such attacks, the IDF and security services have killed scores and injured hundreds of other men, women and children bystanders.

In the same period Palestinian armed groups have killed some 750 Israelis, more than 500 of them civilians, including some 90 children. The victims were killed in deliberate attacks, including frequent suicide bombings in buses, restaurants and other places, which specifically targeted families and other civilians.

Thousands of other Palestinians and Israelis have been injured, many maimed for life.

Thousands of Palestinians, hundreds of them children, have been arbitrarily detained in mass arrests. Most have been released without charge and often without having been questioned. Ill-treatment of detainees has become once again widespread during arrest and interrogation and some have been tortured. Some 800 Palestinians are held in administrative detention without charge or trial, on the basis of "secret evidence", which neither they nor their lawyers are allowed to see or challenge in court. Most detainees cannot receive family visits because of the closures preventing movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Dozens of Israelis have been imprisoned as prisoners of conscience for refusing to perform military service or to serve in the Occupied Territories.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/IOT_home

[Scurrilous]

62. Amnesty: Threefold increase in killings of Palestinians by IDF in 2006

Human rights group’s annual report slams Israel’s activity in the territories, says settlers, soldiers committed ‘serious human rights abuses’; report also says Jewish state committed war crimes during Second Lebanon War

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3403555,00.html

<snip>

"Increased violence between Israelis and Palestinians resulted in a threefold increase in killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces in 2006, according to Amnesty International’s annual human rights report.

More than 650 Palestinians, including some 120 children, and 27 Israelis were killed last year, the report said.

The Amnesty report said Israel "continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a 700 kilometer fence/wall on Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories."

“Military blockades and increased restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of Palestinians and the confiscation by Israel of Palestinian custom duties caused a significant deterioration in living conditions for Palestinian inhabitants in the Occupied Territories,” according to the report.

The report further stated that Israeli soldiers and settlers committed “serious human rights abuses”, including unlawful killings against Palestinians, mostly with impunity.

“Investigations and prosecutions relating to such abuses were rare and usually only occurred when the abuses were exposed by human rights organizations and the media,” Amnesty said.