Arab League: ICC should probe detainees' status

[Jefferson23]

CAIRO (Reuters) -- The Arab League on Thursday called on the United Nations General Assembly to request a probe into the legal status of Palestinians in Israeli prisons.

The UN General Assembly is expected to pass the request to the Hague International Criminal Court.

Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoner Affairs Issa Qaraqe told a news conference in Cairo that he hoped the court would issue an advisory opinion on the legal status of both Palestinians and other Arabs held in Israeli prisons.

Qaraqe met with Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Arabi in the Egyptian capital to discuss the hunger strike staged by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

in full: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=429155

[King_David]

1. Ha , the Arab League ?

Bastion of human rights .

[Jefferson23]

2. Israel's human rights record:

snip: The responsibility of a state for illegal acts carried out by bodies or persons acting on its behalf requires it to mend the consequences of these acts. The first thing it must do is return the situation to its previous condition. In most cases of serious violation of human rights, this is not possible. In those cases, the main obligation in mending the situation is achieved by compensating the victims for the injury caused to them, directly and indirectly, as a result of the infringement of their rights. This obligation of compensation is explicitly incorporated in both international humanitarian law and in international human rights law.

Since the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel has increasingly avoided accountability for the serious violations of the human rights of residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for which it is responsible. This avoidance is seen, in part, in its policy not to open criminal investigations in cases of killing or wounding of Palestinians who were not taking part in the hostilities, except in exceptional cases, and in its enactment of legislation denying, almost completely, the right of Palestinians who were harmed as a result of illegal acts by Israeli security forces to sue for compensation for the damages they suffered.

http://www.btselem.org/accountability

[King_David]

3. Sigh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x368443

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/gay2.htm

Lets compare to Israel....if you dare ;)

[Jefferson23]

4. Your earlier statement speaks to your belief it appears, that when

human rights are narrowed enough, Israel's trumps those of the Arab Nations. When
you look at human rights abuses across the entire spectrum, Israeli policy applied
to the Palestinians, leaves one imo, aghast...to say the least.

From the OP:


The Arab League on Thursday called on the United Nations General Assembly to request a probe into the legal status of Palestinians in Israeli prisons.

The UN General Assembly is expected to pass the request to the Hague International Criminal Court. (end)

Let the international court decide, since you're so confident of Israel's treatment of the detainees.

[shira]

5. LOL, this coming from someone who agrees with Norm Finkelstein, that Hezbollah has the right...

...to terrorize Israeli civilians.

It's not about human rights, is it?

[Jefferson23]

6. You are desperate shira to tell everyone what Finkelstein said and

what I support.

Hezbollah has the right to defend themselves against the same things that Israel has done to them, that was his point, you like to leave that part out.

Why don't you address the fact that the international court can decide the detainees, are you afraid of what they'll decide?

Is that why you want to change the subject? I think that is exactly what you'd like to do.

[shira]

7. Hezbollah has no right to terror vs. Israeli civilians, just as Israel has no right to do that...

If Israel had the right to do that, there would be no need for any Human Rights groups condemning Israel, and in fact Israel could claim it has a right to send missiles into the heart of civilian populations, killing thousands at a time.

Human rights advocates do not argue in favor of legalizing the right to commit mass murder vs. populations of people. And you don't get to set yourself up as a human rights advocate without being challenged for your hypocritical, contradictory odious views.

Cut the charades.

This isn't about human rights for you, is it?

[Jefferson23]

8. So you want to have a contrived conversation about Finkelstein

instead of the OP, that is what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

When you're ready, address the OP about the international court.



For Finkelstein, people can decide for themselves, if interested:

In Defense of Hezbollahby pilias • 02.10.2008 • Lebanon, Letters To Finkelstein, News, Past Features, Video

American Political Scientist Norman Finkelstein: “Israel Has to Suffer a Defeat”

Clip #1676 Broadcast: January 20, 2008 | FUTURE TV (Lebanese TV station; edited & put online by MEMRI TV (their video clips work on Windows PC only)) | YouTube.com (for all users)

To view this video, please download Flash player.

MEMRI transcript:

Following are excerpts from an interview with American Political Scientist Norman Finkelstein, which aired on Future TV on January 20, 2008. The questions were posed in Arabic, and Finkelstein’s responses are in English.

Norman Finkelstein: I was of course happy to meet the Hizbullah people, because it is a point of view that is rarely heard in the United States. I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them, and I am not going to be a coward of a hypocrite about it. I don’t care about Hizbullah as a political organization. I don’t know much about their politics, and anyhow, it’s irrelevant. I don’t live in Lebanon. It’s a choice that the Lebanese have to make: Who they want to be their leaders, who they want to represent them. But there is a fundamental principle. People have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers, and people have the right to defend their country from invaders who are destroying their country. That to me is a very basic, elementary and uncomplicated question.

My parents went through World War II. Now, Stalin’s regime was not exactly a bed of roses. It was a ruthless and brutal regime, and many people perished. But who didn’t support the Soviet Union when they defeated the Nazis? Who didn’t support the Red Army? In all the countries of Europe which were occupied – who gets all the honors? The resistance. The Communist resistance – it was brutal, it was ruthless. The Communists were not… It wasn’t a bed of roses, but you respect them. You respect them because they resisted the foreign occupiers of their country. If I am going to honor the Communists during World War II, even through I probably would not have done very well under their regimes… If I’m going to honor them, I am going to honor the Hizbullah. They show courage, and they show discipline. I respect that.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/in-defense-of-hezbollah/

[shira]

9. Just saying, this fake "human rights" advocacy has grown stale. As to Finkelstein...

...when he says he's against Hezbollah's politics and doesn't know much about Hezbollah:

BULLSHIT!

He knows damned well what Hezbollah is about - it's not about defending against Israel but attacking Israel - and he expresses his solidarity with those Jew hating, murderous scum on the Ayatollah's payroll.

Tells you all you need to know about Finkelstein.


=======


Next, we'll learn he doesn't care too much for or knows enough about David Duke and the KKK, but expresses solidarity with them anyway.

:eyes:

Unbelievable how the willfully blind suck this shit up!

[Jefferson23]

10. If you believe concerns are "fake"..then support the international

court to hear the concerns of the detainees. Or would that be problematic for you?

[shira]

11. There's no "if" about your fake concern (not the detainees). And no, I don't support...

...further delegitimization efforts vs. Israel.

[Jefferson23]

12. I have no interest of what opinion you have of me shira. I am trying to

speak about the OP, which until now, you've made no comment. So, the international court joins your
ongoing list of discredited means of holding Israel accountable.

[shira]

16. I'm not impressed with the International Court either WRT attempts to delegitimize Israel.

Their ruling on Israel's security fence - which has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives - is proof the ICJ operates under the influence of governments and agencies dedictated to harming Israel. In fact, the ruling made no mention of Israel's legitimate security concerns that led to the building of the fence.

I don't expect you to agree.

Israel has no right to defend its citizens. The fence has nothing to do with Israel's security, blah, blah, blah. Israel has no legit security concerns.

:eyes:

[Jefferson23]

21. At least you're clear, there exists no credible human rights group, and the ICJ

is tainted goods too.

The security fence is WHERE it is placed, not that they have one. I suspect you knew that already about the ICJ ruling.

Enjoy Israel's continuing isolation in the world.

on edit for clarity.

[shira]

23. I didn't say that at all. I believe "Advancing Human Rights" is credible.

And no, the ICJ ruling on Israel didn't even mention Israel's security concerns (big spike in terror against Israeli civilians).

[Jefferson23]

26. I beg your pardon, which human rights group is credible to you, I believe

you have none listed. The ICJ addressed the wall, the problem is WHERE it is located, who's land it is on, not that they can't
have one.

Again, no human rights group nor the ICJ is fair, impartial to Israel, according to you.

[shira]

28. Check out their "Advancing Human Rights" link. They're a credible human rights group.

http://advancinghumanrights.org/

Where did the ICJ ruling address Israel's security concerns WRT terror? Show me.

I'm here with arms folded, tapping feet....

Waiting.

[Jefferson23]

30. Read the ruling, you have more than enough time to do so.

Well look at that, you finally found one that doesn't want to examine, among other countries, Israel...lol. In essence, there
exists no human rights group, nor the UN, nor the ICJ, to examine Israeli policy that you respect.


ProfileAHR was founded on the view that human rights groups have strayed from focusing on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that instead the international human rights community has focused its limited resources disproportionately on democratic states and their behavior in combat. AHR believes there should be a return to focusing on the Universal Declaration in "authoritarian countries without free speech or corrective mechanisms."<1>

AHR argues that domestic human rights groups in democratic countries openly criticize their governments, while non-democratic states are incapable of self-correction because they lack the basic liberties necessary. Instead, as one Human Rights Watch board member confided to the New Republic, open societies become “low-hanging fruit” because of their easy access to information and human rights groups’ need to seek “the limelight.” <2>

AHR “returns to the values outlined in the Universal Declaration while focusing primarily on unfree states” that do not have domestic “means to correct human rights violations.” <3> The organization was started by Robert L. Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch, and David Keyes, who is AHR's Executive Director and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org.<4>

Key staffBernstein served as the President of Random House for 25 years. He published many great American authors, including William Faulkner, James Michener, Dr. Seuss, Toni Morrison and William Styron. After being invited to the Soviet Union as part of a delegation from the Association of American Publishers, he became interested in writers whose work could not be published in their own countries. Beginning with Andrei Sakharov and Elena Bonner, he ensured that authors like Václav Havel, Jacobo Timerman and Wei Jingsheng were published at Random House.

After his experience in Moscow in 1973, Bernstein returned to the U.S. and established the Fund for Free Expression, the parent organization of Helsinki Watch which later became Human Rights Watch. Bernstein served as the Founding Chair of Human Rights Watch until 1990 and thereafter as the Founding Chair Emeritus. He is also Chair Emeritus of the largest Chinese human rights organization, Human Rights in China, with offices in New York, Hong Kong and Brussels.

In October 2009 Bernstein wrote an OpEd for the New York Times criticizing Human Rights Watch for what he considered its unfair treatment of Israel. He argued that the organization he founded had "lost its critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields."

Keyes served as coordinator for democracy programs under famed Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky. In 2010, he spoke in the United States Congress, Italian parliament and Google, and he has been featured on PBS, Bloomberg TV, Voice of America and other forums. He has written for Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast and many other newspapers. A self-described “Sharanskyite”,<5> Keyes has been a staunch advocate of basic liberties around the world. He often references the legacy of Soviet dissidents including Andrei Sakharov, Andrei Amalrik, Anatoly Marchenko, Elena Bonner and Vladamir Bukovsky. Keyes speaks Arabic, Hebrew and English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancing_Human_Rights_(NGO)

[shira]

31. Awww, you want more credible Human Rights groups? Just ask...

UN Watch
Human Rights First
Witness


How many more do you want? I'm sorry, but I won't include those with antisemitic agendas, that many here excuse, ignore, or deny.

[Jefferson23]

32. Those groups do not investigate Israel, you may need to educate

yourself on what human rights groups actually do...the process involved.

Once again, you have reaffirmed your position, no such human rights group exists, not the UN, not the ICJ..no one has
been impartial when it comes to Israel, according to you.

I think we're done here, at least I am.

Enjoy your world, as small as it is.

[shira]

33. You mean they don't obsessively bash and delegitimize Israel. It's telling you can't admit...

...how ridiculously hostile and antisemitic some human rights organizations are WRT Israel.

I suppose if you ignore and deny it, it's as if it never happens and you can pretend credible human rights organizations are legitimately criticizing Israel.

Whatever it takes to believe that, right?

[Jefferson23]

34. No, I meant exactly what I said, those groups you listed do not use a process to review/examine

the Israeli government's actions toward the Palestinians. That is why you approve of them, evidently.
For example, from Amnesty International on the process they use:

How does Amnesty International carry out its work?
All our campaigning and research is fact based. Among the many activities we carry out, we:
•send experts to talk with victims
•observe trials
•interview local officials
•liaise with human rights activists
•monitor global and local media
•publish detailed reports
•inform the news media
•publicize our concerns in documents, leaflets, posters, advertisements, newsletters and websites
http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/faq#how-ai-works

Regarding UN Watch
snip* Don't get me wrong. Israel has been and is treating the Palestinians in a manner which Jimmy Carter was quite right to compare with apartheid. But to give a free pass to Sudan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus, as the council has done recently, devalues the Palestinian case, and gives Israel and its friends a claim to discrimination.

Anyone carrying a hypocrisy detector through the UN would be distracted by its continuous beeping, as one would expect in places filled with politicians and diplomats. But passing UN Watch's office would set it beeping as well. If the organization could point to a single occasion when it had condemned manifest Israeli transgressions of the human rights of Palestinians, it would give itself a secure platform from which to criticize the human rights council. UN Watch rightly criticizes Sudan's refusal to let in a human rights council delegation into Darfur. But then how, with a straight face, can it avoid criticizing Israel for refusing to allow in rapporteurs from the same council?

Humanity, and the human rights council, should steer clear of obsessive Israel boosters just assiduously as it avoids those who obsessively attack Israel to protect other human rights offenders. Human Rights Watch or Amnesty will get any cheques I have to spare.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/04/itwasamakemydayevent


on edit to add: You have not one human rights group you respect.

So long shira.

[shira]

35. Since you brought up Amnesty......"Why is Amnesty hosting a Hamas-friendly publisher of racists?"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100084962/why-is-amnesty-hosting-a-hamas-friendly-publisher-of-racists/

That's one of many examples of Amnesty's antisemitic tendencies. Here's another:

No Support For Amnesty International Until It Reinstates Gita Sahgal, Cuts Jihadist Ties.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/02/no-support-for-amnesty-international.html

The better question is WHY support or trust Amnesty WRT their work on Israel?

I know, you'll ignore or deny that and all other examples of Amnesty's nastiness. Claim there's a problem with the sources. Pretend no problem exists and then mock people like myself for having lost faith in organizations like Amnesty.

:eyes:

======

Now that you know why I don't have any faith in Amnesty, for example, on all matters I/P, I want to know which Jewish organizations dedicated to battling antisemitism you find credible. From ADL to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, from the CST to the EUMC, Robert Wistrich, Eli Wiesel, etc.? I'm going to assume you don't find ANY that are credible. Am I right?

[shira]

37. The founder of 'Advancing Human Rights' is the founder of HRW. It's a legit HR group. n/t

[King_David]

17. Yep, same as Cuba Libya Saudi Syria sitting

In judgement of Israel on the UNHRC .. Why bother indeed.

[shira]

18. Odd how none of the biggest Palestinian supporters here have a problem with Libya, Cuba, Syria...

...sitting in judgment of other nations' human rights records at the UNHRC.

Isn't that odd?

:shrug:

[King_David]

20. Of course not , it is only the Jewish States" infractions"

They care about .

[Jefferson23]

22. You do not support the decisions from the ICJ either, from no one, as a matter of choice.

I do find your positions hilarious at times. The whole world has it out for Israel according to you, has nothing
to do with international law, what do those guys know..lol.

[shira]

24. See #23. Are you familiar with what happened at Durban in 2001? The role of HRW, Amnesty, the UN...

You realize most civilized nations didn't participate at the most recent Durban 3 UN conference because of the Jew hatred?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x367558#368024
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x367558#368029

Pretty nasty shit happened in 2001 at Durban under HRW and Amnesty's watch.

Not that I expect you to agree.

I expect you to either ignore or deny the clearest evidence of antisemitism exhibited by major Human Rights groups.

[shira]

25. More links proving how antisemitic the NGO conference at Durban 2001 was...

You know, all those major human rights organizations you trust:

http://www.adl.org/durban/durban_090401d.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/04/world/racism-walkout-overview-us-israelis-quit-racism-talks-over-denunciation.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.salon.com/2001/09/07/durban_2/

What we see today WRT all the antisemitism and delegitimization directed at Israel all started - generally speaking - at that Durban conference WRT human rights groups planning to isolate Israel. It was very shocking at the time and was very difficult to grasp/understand. Over the years, it's become more clear.

That NGO declaration - proudly supported by HRW and Amnesty in 2001 - called Israel a racist, genocidal state.

That's antisemitic according to every Jewish agency devoted to battling antisemitism. From the ADL to the EUMC working definition.

[Jefferson23]

27. As I said, none of these human rights group, and the UN, nor the ICJ

is fair to Israel..that is your position. The world, for the most part, is out to get Israel...it has nothing
to do with the longest occupation, no.

[shira]

29. Wow, way to ignore all that's wrong with the NGO's you admire! Of course, I called it...

I knew you'd either ignore or deny the antisemitism of major NGO's.

[shira]

36. Jefferson23, you don't see a problem with Amnesty and HRW's role at Durban 2001?

I guess not, right?

=======

Can't say I'm surprised.

The usual tactic is to deny and ignore every bit of antisemitism towards Jews and Israel by redirecting blame towards the targets of such hatred and antisemitism.

Shameless.

=======

Realize I can ask the same of you. Which organizations dedicated to fighting antisemitism do you find credible?

ADL
EUMC
Simon Wiesenthal
CST
Robert Wistrich's Vidal Sassoon Center



My guess is none.

In your opinion, they're all biased rightwing Jewish organizations trying to deflect any/all criticism of Israel.

:eyes:

[Shaktimaan]

38. yes. spot on.

The world, for the most part, is out to get Israel...and it has nothing
to do with the longest occupation. Correct.

It's astounding that anyone could think otherwise.
See, there's lots of evidence supporting my view. And virtually none, save speculation, supporting yours.

It's not the OPTs. It's Israel's existence. It's THAT occupation.

[Jefferson23]

39. I trust that you believe this, there is nothing I could say to have you

consider otherwise. As far as speculation on my part versus yours, I would say that is an inaccurate
description. The information I posted is not based on opinions of one group, and is based on international
law..one can respect that or not. I will add that governments in general do not appreciate being held
accountable, this is certainly not an exclusive position Israel's government holds itself in. I would
also keep in mind that a fair percentage of Israeli Jews, would not agree with you.

I generally post information with links, people decide the veracity of it for themselves. It is clear
where you stand, I appreciate it.

[Shaktimaan]

40. how is...

the fact that Israel is singled out for discrimination at the UN based in international law?

Roughly half of the UNGA's resolutions single out Israel for condemnation. That is more than every other country combined. Are we truly to believe that this is because of the occupation? Was it always the longest occupation in history? (Probably not since it isn't even now.) Is Israel perhaps the most brutal, bloodthirsty example of a state oppressing another in the UN's history?

The UNHRC has condemned Israel in HALF of its resolutions so far. In fact it is the ONLY country to be condemned by the UNHRC.

But then, Israel doesn't qualify to ever sit of the HRC's panel. They are not allowed to participate in any discussions or develop any legislation outside of the NYC offices. Nor are they permitted to even go on the ballot to be elected to the security council.

And this is because of the occupation?

States that participate in outright slavery, apartheid and genocide never faced any of these restrictions. Morocco has occupies Western Sahara for only 12 years less than Israel has the OPT. China's occupied Tibet since 1951, are they allowed on the security council? The Khmer Rouge killed a million of its own citizens in four years, were they restricted in any way? No? Hmmm, that's weird, isn't it? Because only 60,000 have died over 65 years in the I/P conflict. That's a lot less than a million.

I know...! What about when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Israel didn't occupy anything? Surely then Jordan must have been subject to these discriminations while Israel was not, right???? NO!!!??? My word, why not!??

Incidentally, I have never yet met an Israeli Jew who thinks that Israel is treated without bias at the UN. Not a single one. Where are you getting this "fair percentage" idea from?

Also, for the record, "International Law" is hardly an authoritative voice in determining the issues surrounding this conflict. Like all law it is subject to interpretation. These interpretations can change along with changes in social mores, ethics and yes, even political considerations. There is certainly no international law that determined where the border of Palestine should be, or what land belongs to whom.

[Jefferson23]

41. I'll remind you of the post you initially responded to, post# 27.

As I said, none of these human rights group, and the UN, nor the ICJ
is fair to Israel..that is your position. The world, for the most part, is out to get Israel...it has nothing
to do with the longest occupation, no.

Your response was: yes. spot on.
The world, for the most part, is out to get Israel...and it has nothing
to do with the longest occupation. Correct.

It's astounding that anyone could think otherwise.
See, there's lots of evidence supporting my view. And virtually none, save speculation, supporting yours.

It's not the OPTs. It's Israel's existence. It's THAT occupation. (end)


Yet your response here has it narrowed to the UN, for the most part. You joined a conversation that was about the opinion of
another poster, no human rights groups exists, neither the UN, nor the ICJ, has treated Israeli actions toward
the Palestinians with fairness, it primarily, antisemitic in nature. ( Btw, the occupation is most certainly the longest in modern history.)

Respected human rights groups have documented egregious Israeli policy for decades. B'tselem, for one:

http://www.btselem.org/


Anyone who discounts the occupation for fueling bigotry is very naive, and is ignoring human nature, yet you believe the actions of a
country as documented, could not possibly be at the root..it is primarily about who they are.

It is not a perfect body, the UNHRC. I wonder if you consider how the ME views the United States as an honest broker in the
peace process. From their perspective, it looks like what it is, an untrustworthy alliance with Israel. No matter what Israel does
it's fine with the US..balances out hypocrisy if you will, no one should forget the power the United States carries in these
circumstances. What has Israel suffered as a result of the condemnation? Nothing. What has changed for the Palestinians? Nothing.

Each move of late by Abbas has been political ans non-violent and yet no recognition should be supported by the United States for them at the UN. This is not considered a just nor fair position by most countries and with good reason.


Your questions about why China and not Israel, if you believe this has anything to do with who is an angel and who isn't, you'd be wrong.

The history of it has to do with they (China) were a major power after world war 2, and since the founding have remained a permanent member.

You: Incidentally, I have never yet met an Israeli Jew who thinks that Israel is treated without bias at the UN. Not a single one. Where are you getting this "fair percentage" idea from?

My response to you was and still holds that a fair percentage of Israeli Jews do not believe the world is out to get them, that their
government should be held accountable.

What I find surprising at times, is why is it so important that before Israel's transgressions be dealt with, the rest of world should
get their act together, THEN we can examine Israel's policies. I wonder which country is best suited for such a task..certainly, it wouldn't be
the United States. We are responsible for using drone attacks, killing 173 children ( Pakistani)..poof they are gone. You want to tell me this
activity does not fuel hatred, you believe they hate us for who we are..for our freedom etc. or because their religion tells them to hate us.
Our government does not wish to be held accountable..this is not surprising, doesn't mean I will accept their excuses to immunize themselves
from prosecution.

I do not share your concern about who should be condemned, I look for accountability from the ICJ as a last hope for citizens of many
countries, including my own. When our government wants to look forward on torture, and no one is going to be investigated, and no one
here is going to do a damn thing about it, yes..the ICJ is hopeful and should be supported.


Your last statement: Also, for the record, "International Law" is hardly an authoritative voice in determining the issues surrounding this conflict. Like all law it is subject to interpretation. These interpretations can change along with changes in social mores, ethics and yes, even political considerations. There is certainly no international law that determined where the border of Palestine should be, or what land belongs to whom.


So, they're just wrong in your view..this is a weak understanding imo. The ruling among other things, dealt with violations to the Geneva
Convention...how much expertise your critics have against 15 jurists of this stature is something I'd like to see for myself.

[Shaktimaan]

42. I apologize for the delay.

I don't have much time so I'll just jump into it.

Yet your response here has it narrowed to the UN, for the most part. You joined a conversation that was about the opinion of
another poster, no human rights groups exists, neither the UN, nor the ICJ, has treated Israeli actions toward
the Palestinians with fairness, it primarily, antisemitic in nature. ( Btw, the occupation is most certainly the longest in modern history.)

I focused on the UN because the examples are less complex and easier to highlight without going into too much extraneous detail. Needless to say, both the ICJ and many large human rights orgs approach Israel with a similar bias IMO. Not all of this is based on antisemitism. Some is rooted in politics, some in monetary concerns. In some places the reasons are more complex. (I just recently read a book about anti-zionism in Europe. To chalk it up to either the occupation or basic anti-semitism would be gravely oversimplifying.)

Why the ICJ or the UN is thought of as impartial is beyond me. They are inherently political organizations. (Btw, as I mentioned in my last post, China's occupation of Tibet is significantly longer than Israel's of Palestine and Morocco's occupation is nearly as long but, unlike Israel, completely lacks any movement towards granting self-determination to Western Sahara. Yet no one seems to care at all about that. It is beyond invisible compared to the attention paid to Israel.)

Respected human rights groups have documented egregious Israeli policy for decades. B'tselem, for one:

B'tselem is great. I don't always agree with them, and I certainly find them biased, but it was born with a specific agenda, so I expect this. HRW, however, has an obligation to treat the conflict without bias. An obligation it fails to fulfill.

Anyone who discounts the occupation for fueling bigotry is very naive, and is ignoring human nature, yet you believe the actions of a
country as documented, could not possibly be at the root..it is primarily about who they are.

Correct. Obviously the occupation fuels resentment. And some of this is certainly legitimate. But for the most part I believe that the occupation serves as a justification for bigotry that would otherwise still exist.

It is not a perfect body, the UNHRC. I wonder if you consider how the ME views the United States as an honest broker in the
peace process. From their perspective, it looks like what it is, an untrustworthy alliance with Israel. No matter what Israel does
it's fine with the US..balances out hypocrisy if you will, no one should forget the power the United States carries in these
circumstances. What has Israel suffered as a result of the condemnation? Nothing. What has changed for the Palestinians? Nothing.

It's not a perfect body? Ummm. OK. That's one way of putting it. I would probably fit the word "sham" in there though. And take out the other words.

Is the US an honest broker? Sure, they are honest. Are they unbiased? Of course not. Asking whether they are fair is a totally subjective question though. I think the US really does want peace and every president certainly wants it as part of their legacy. Some did a better job than others. G.W. Bush was unabashedly pro-Israel to a point that his attempts at peace-making were success-proof. His father had an obvious affinity for the Palestinians, which Arafat relied on far too much, ultimately hurting his cause. But I think Clinton was a pretty fair broker who held peace as his goal over appeasing the Israelis.

What has Israel suffered? I outlined a few of the examples in which Israel is discriminated against at the UN earlier. But that is a small fraction of the punishments imposed on Israel over the decades. Not mentioned were things like the sanctions and trade restrictions which had serious economic impact. G.W. Bush prevented Israel from expanding settlements under threat of cutting off loan guarantees. And more recently Israel gave up all of Gaza to the Palestinians, only to be rewarded with unbelievable amounts of rocket/mortar attacks which the world refused to condemn for years. Condemnation was saved for Israel's attempts at non-violent sanctions/blockades and their eventual defensive counter-attack.

What has changed for the Palestinians? They have a government, elections, self-determination over some land for the first time in history, a UN refugee organization dedicated solely to advocating for them, opportunities to build and manage their own state, offers for reparations for lost property, the choice to become Israeli citizens for Jerusalemites, a settlement freeze extending to the entire West Bank and Gaza (excepting for building WITHIN existing settlements), all of Gaza handed over along with its infrastructure and greenhouses and stuff, a non-member platform at the UN to speak and so on. Mostly, the Palestinians now have control over their own destiny. They elected Hamas freely. They supported the attacks on Israeli civilians. The situation in Gaza is fully of their own making. They hold the keys to both their stagnation or their success (as much as any group with their history and lack of viable political options can.) The importance of this can not be overstated.

My response to you was and still holds that a fair percentage of Israeli Jews do not believe the world is out to get them, that their
government should be held accountable.

My point was never that Israelis did not think their government should be held accountable. It was that there is extreme bias against them at the UN, in many human rights groups and at the ICJ.

What I find surprising at times, is why is it so important that before Israel's transgressions be dealt with, the rest of world should get their act together, THEN we can examine Israel's policies.

Also not my point. My issue is with the huge disparity between Israel's transgressions and those of the states that critique it when said critiques are given the backing of supposedly neutral, international organizations. I have no issues with critiquing Israel's mistakes or oppressive policies. But I don't find them to be a compelling reason to discriminate against Israel in a manner faced byy no other state, nor do I find it acceptable to hold Israel to a different standard than every other country. I ask merely for fair and equitable treatment.

Your last statement: Also, for the record, "International Law" is hardly an authoritative voice in determining the issues surrounding this conflict. Like all law it is subject to interpretation. These interpretations can change along with changes in social mores, ethics and yes, even political considerations. There is certainly no international law that determined where the border of Palestine should be, or what land belongs to whom. So, they're just wrong in your view..this is a weak understanding imo. The ruling among other things, dealt with violations to the Geneva Convention...how much expertise your critics have against 15 jurists of this stature is something I'd like to see for myself.

Sure. Here are some examples.

Regarding settlements:

International law expert Julius Stone, and Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School, argued that the settlements are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds. Stone held that it was legal for Israel to establish Nahal settlements, necessary for military purposes along the ceasefire lines and in the Jordan Valley. The fact that they had been established to initiate profitable agriculture was of no legal concern. William M. Brinton, an American international lawyer, held that Israel was "at least quasi-sovereign with respect to both areas under principles of customary international law," and deemed the settlements legal.

Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

A contrasting opinion was held by Eugene Rostow, a former Dean of the Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in the administration of U.S. President Lyndon Johnson and a drafter of UN Resolution 242:

The heated question of Israel's settlements in the West Bank during the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article", which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."<100>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Legal_status

Regarding Article 49:

The international lawyer Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State, stated in 1990:

he Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War - the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example....The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.8

Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremburg Tribunal and later involved in the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is on record as stating that the convention:

was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.9

Similarly, international lawyer Prof. Julius Stone, in referring to the absurdity of considering Israeli settlements as a violation of Article 49(6), stated:

Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6.)10

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=5603&TTL=The_Settlements_Issue:_Distorting_the_Geneva_Convention_and_the_Oslo_Accords

A few points:

It is claimed that settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians (1949). But both the text of that convention, and the post-World War II circumstances under which it was drafted, clearly indicate that it was never intended to refer to situations like Israel's settlements. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Article 49 relates to situations where populations are coerced into being transferred. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel's settlement policy.

During the negotiation on the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Arab states initiated an addition to the text in order to render it applicable to Israel's settlement policy. This was indicative of the international community's acknowledgment that the original 1949 Geneva Convention language was simply not relevant to Israel's settlements.
(Note that Israel was prohibited in participating in the drafting of this document since it took place in Rome.)

The continued reliance by the international community on the Geneva Convention as the basis for determining the illegality of Israel's settlements fails to take into account the unique nature of the history, legal framework, and negotiating circumstances regarding the West Bank.

A special regime between Israel and the Palestinians is set out in a series of agreements negotiated between 1993 and 1999 that are still valid - that govern all issues between them, settlements included. In this framework there is no specific provision restricting planning, zoning, and continued construction by either party. The Palestinians cannot now invoke the Geneva Convention regime in order to bypass previous internationally acknowledged agreements.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=5603&TTL=The_Settlements_Issue:_Distorting_the_Geneva_Convention_and_the_Oslo_Accords

This is just a quick overview using wikipedia and a 2 second google search. I trust that the legal opinions proffered are from sources that meet your stringent benchmark for reliability though.

You quoted me "There is certainly no international law that determined where the border of Palestine should be, or what land belongs to whom. So, they're just wrong in your view" and disagreed. So what law do you believe delineates these two items? Because if anything I feel that the law and previous peace agreements clearly designates them as unresolved and disputed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Why bother?

I entirely agree that most of the Arab states have human rights records far worse than Israel's.

That doesn't mean that Israel's isn't itself appalling. "Look over there" just doesn't cut it.

[shira]

19. They don't get to judge others' human rights. Got it? Nope, guess not. n/t

[BeenThereDoneThat]

13. Huh

I know I am new to this place but does the gilad Shalit story ring a bell with you? Forgive me if the Arab league made similar demands on his treatment and I am unaware of them.

[azurnoir]

15. of course Gilad Schalit's story "rings a bell" perhaps the ICC should

investigate the conditions that he and other Hamas prisoners are or were held, I would not have any problem with that and I can't think of anyone here that would.