NGO Monitor blasts Amnesty for not condemning rockets

[shira]

The Jerusalem-based human rights watchdog organization NGO Monitor sharply criticized Amnesty International’s response to last week’s Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, which resulted in the killing of eight Israelis and scores of wounded.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor president, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that “instead of issuing a strong condemnation of the August 18 Palestinian terror attacks, Amnesty International’s statement draws a false equivalence between cold-blooded murder and self defense that targeted those responsible.”

He added that “from Amnesty’s statement, one has no idea that terrorists walked up to a car and brutally murdered the four passengers. Amnesty has immorally treated both the murders and the self-defense response as ‘indiscriminate and disproportionate.’ In obscuring the facts on the ground, Amnesty again makes a complete mockery of international law and human rights values.”

Citing media reports that the assailants were dressed in Egyptian military uniforms and their illegal entry into Egypt and Israel, NGO Monitor said the attacks represent a “violation of international humanitarian law. If the terrorists indeed originated from Gaza, they also violated the sovereignty of both Egypt and Israel, a detail that was also ignored by Amnesty.”

more...
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=235017

[Jefferson23]

1. There is no link in the OP to the AI response he references.

This is the only press release I am aware of, from the AI website:

August 19

Civilians at Risk Amid New Attacks in Israel and Gaza, Says Amnesty International
Contact: AIUSA media relations, 202-509-8194

(Washington, D.C.) -- Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups must refrain from indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks harming civilians, Amnesty International said today, following several attacks in southern Israel and a series of Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian armed groups reportedly fired at least 10 indiscriminate rockets into southern Israel today, injuring at least six people - one seriously - in the Israeli town of Ashdod.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces continued air strikes on multiple locations in Gaza, following a series of strikes on Thursday and overnight that killed at least seven people, including two children and four members of the military wing of the Popular Resistance Committees.

"The civilian deaths and injuries over the last two days in Israel and Gaza are deeply alarming and the escalating attacks underline the need for both sides to the conflict to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties," said Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Program.

At least 20 Palestinians had been injured by 2 p.m. local time on Friday. The ambulance and emergency services in Gaza reported that the majority of those injured were women and children.

Six Israeli civilians, one soldier and one policeman were killed in attacks yesterday on two buses, a private car and a military vehicle in southern Israel. More than 30 Israelis were injured, including civilians and military personnel.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks but the Israeli government has blamed the Popular Resistance Committees.

"Palestinian armed groups must immediately cease firing indiscriminate rockets into Israel," said Smart. "For their part, Israeli forces must comply with the same rules of international humanitarian law, which prohibit attacks on civilians and indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. All parties must distinguish between civilians and military targets."

Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/civilians-at-risk-amid-new-attacks-in-israel-and-gaza-says-amnesty-international

.

[shira]

4. You don't see a problem with that AI release? As if Israeli intent were the same as Palestinian...

To indiscriminately kill civilians?

:eyes:

I searched and couldn't find AI's response either. Not that it matters as their original report is bad enough, as are the other things mentioned at the end of the OP in the Jpost.

[Jefferson23]

5. It does not matter? What original report are you referring to, and please

post it.

[shira]

6. I'm referring to AI's report that you cited. It equates Palestinian intent to terrorize/murder...

....with the Israeli response to those attacks. IOW, Israel killing terrorists is the same as Palestinians deliberately murdering innocents.

Apparently, you have no problem with that. Not that I would expect anything different from anyone with an anti-Israel POV.

[Jefferson23]

8. That is your translation, sad as it is.

NGO Monitor leaves no direct link to what they are critical of, this is no concern to you...ok.

NGO Monitor is about as anti- Israel as a group can be.

From AI's press release: "Palestinian armed groups must immediately cease firing indiscriminate rockets into Israel," said Smart. "For their part, Israeli forces must comply with the same rules of international humanitarian law, which prohibit attacks on civilians and indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. All parties must distinguish between civilians and military targets."

[shira]

9. It's not a translation. Re-read the article you posted from AI. They make no distinction WRT intent.

Both the terrorist actions and the Israeli responses are described as indiscriminate and disproportionate.

This is yet more evidence, in addition to that in the second half of the OP, showing AI has completely lost its way.

[Jefferson23]

10. You can re-read it...you don't like it ..it does not place Israel above the fray.

I understood your concern the first time, that is what I meant by your sad translation.

[shira]

11. Do you agree with AI: terrorist actions = Israeli responses to those actions? Both equally bad?

The terrorists deliberately set out to kill civilians.

Israel has in turn killed about 15, of which 12 were terrorists.

No real difference in intent, right? Both are equally bad, indiscriminate, and disproportionate?

[Jefferson23]

13. There is a point to any further discussion with you on this? I don't believe there is shira.

Look at the fact that you still do not know what NGO Monitor is referring to because they
made a decision not to link to it..you're clearly ok with that omission.

The one I posted may be what they are referring to, I could not find any other press release for that
time frame.

You appear to believe NGO Monitor has proven a negative..Israel did not use disproportionate force, it did
discriminate when applying force.


Take comfort in your belief that AI has it out for Israel.

[Ken Burch]

16. IT's an irrelevant question.

You just want to keep pretending that the whole issue is about what Hamas does.

[shira]

17. It's very relevant as it shows just how irrational the anti-Israel "left " is when equating terror

...with proper responses to said terror.

Not that obsessed haters of Israel would ever admit error or self-criticize, as that ruins the narrative.

[Ken Burch]

20. Neither I nor Amnesty are "obsessed haters of Israel"

You don't have to defend hardline Israeli security policies just to prove you're not anti-Israel.

The way to stop Hamas is to end the Occupation and to stop oppressing the Palestinian people. It's only the preservation of the status quo that gives Hamas any traction at all.

[shira]

24. So if Israel ends the occupation, only then would it make sense for AI and others to condemn Hamas

....for future attacks on civilians?

[Ken Burch]

Ending the Occupation would reduce Hamas' support to near nothing

Why are you so obsessed with getting people to condemn Hamas, when you know such condemnations are always useless?

[shira]

28. Ending Gaza and Lebanon occupations only made Hamas and Hezbollah stronger...

...so you're wrong there, Ken. Both organizations convinced their populations that terror is what drove Israel out and they'd use the same approach after an end to occupation. That would make them even MORE popular....

And you didn't answer the question. Do I need to ask it again?

[Ken Burch]

31. No, I'm not wrong

The issue of the refugees(who, if they aren't to be allowed RoR, will HAVE to be given apologies AND compensation AND an admission that they were treated unjustly in the first place)remained. The West Bank occupation remained. The repressive treatment of Palestinians on a daily basis in the West Bank remained. As long as those things remained, it was never realistic to expect that the Gaza or Lebanon withdrawals would be seen as meaningful concessions(especially since Israel didn't admit that it never had any right to occupy Lebanon or Gaza).

It's not a worthy question, since AI condemning Hamas couldn't lead to anything positive at all, and would make no difference in what Hamas does.

Your obsession with Hamas serves no purpose-especially since you act like Hamas emerged for no reason.

[shira]

36. Now you're just making excuses. You'll make a list a mile long and if Israel doesn't comply...

...with every single thing on your list, then you believe terrorists still have every reason to keep attacking.

They will never be responsible, but Israel will no matter what. Ever seen the Hamas charter, Ken? They won't stop until Jews are dead or gone. But you'll overlook that and pretend Hamas has a real reason, right?

You're justifying terror.

[Ken Burch]

2. Amnesty deals with human rights issues, not uses of force

Therefore, they weren't obligated to issue such a condemnation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. So there is not right not to be shelled?

[shira]

7. Yes, Ken. Terrorists have the same human rights as the innocents they murder, according to AI. n/t

[Ken Burch]

15. Not what I was saying

What AI does is deal with individual prisoners of conscience. While the shelling is wrong, it couldn't have fit AI's brief to condemn it.

It isn't a human rights issue in the same way that holding a person in a cell and torturing them is.

And besides, condemning the shellings is pointless, since it can never change anything.

[shira]

18. "Condemning (Hamas terror) is pointless, since it can never change anything."

Rrrrright.

And that's exactly what's wrong with NGO's with political agendas who pretend to work for universal human rights.

[Ken Burch]

22. What's wrong with not wasting time on futility?

What Hamas does isn't the issue here. The Occupation and the mistreatment of Palestinians are the issues. There needs to be admissions of wrong and compensation to the people of Palestine. THAT is what will sideline Hamas.

Condemning Hamas everytime Israel demands such condemnation achieves nothing. It's about as useful as all the U.S. condemnations of "Soviet oppression" during the Cold War, none of which ever helped anyone behind the Iron Curtain.

Also, Amnesty has never taken sides in international disputes, such as the I/P conflict. To condemn Hamas using your verbiage would mean to take sides, and to take sides with the oppressor nation in this case. Amnesty could never work for human rights again after doing that.

Amnesty would then be reducing itself to the level of the comically misnamed "Freedom House" organization, a group that exists not to speak out for human rights, but simply to shill for American world domination.

The only reason you want condemnations of Hamas is that you want to shut people up about the Occupation.

[shira]

23. It's not futile to publicly condemn Hamas in hopes of avoiding another OCL...

Do you really think it's better for AI to criticize Israel's responses to Hamas terror, rather than criticize Hamas first?

Think of the victims. If not Israeli victims of Hamas rockets, then at least Palestinian victims of OCL part 2 which could be avoided if the world were harsh enough in its condemnations of Hamas.

I think the problem is you see Hamas as blameless victims who aren't responsible for what they do.

[Ken Burch]

25. Condemning Hamas can never prevent another OCL.

You just want Amnesty to take Israel's side in the dispute, which would mean it would no longer be a human rights organization. It would also mean Amnesty would be an extreme right-wing organization like the useless Freedom House.

[shira]

29. Condemning Hamas wouldn't be taking Israel's side for AI...

"You just want Amnesty to take Israel's side in the dispute, which would mean it would no longer be a human rights organization. It would also mean Amnesty would be an extreme right-wing organization like the useless Freedom House."

Condemning Hamas would be speaking up for the human rights of Israelis.

You know, they're human and they have rights too, believe it or not...

You probably think Amnesty would be an extreme rightwing organization for condemning Hamas actions against Palestinian citizens too. The very Palestinians whose human rights you and they purport to champion.

[azurnoir]

35. AI condemned the killing of civilians by both sides

and no they did not name Hamas, in this case even Israel is not certain of Hams involvement, one could get the impression that you consider any Palestinian at least from Gaza who is involved with hostilities against Israel to be Hamas?

[Ken Burch]

38. So, effectively, they did what shira wants.

It's enough to condemn the killing of innocents. Period.

[shira]

40. No, they minimized terror by drawing a false equivalence. A form of dehumanization.

Israel's victims of terror don't count.

[Ken Burch]

43. It's enough to say that it's wrong to kill civilians. That's all that had to be said

And they said it.

They didn't have to say that the Israeli response was morally superior.

[shira]

44. They should have just focused on the terror attacks, as there is zero reason to believe...

...Israel is acting with malice in response. What's difficult about this?

[Dick Dastardly]

51. This is a response to both your posts 2 and 15 which are so transparently erroneous

they stem from either a total ignorance on the subject or a pathetic attempt to make things up as you go to fit your agenda or even a combo of both. I have come to expect such tactics from you as par for the course but this is embarrassing even by your standards.



You posted

2. Amnesty deals with human rights issues, not uses of force
Therefore, they weren't obligated to issue such a condemnation

15 Not what I was saying
What AI does is deal with individual prisoners of conscience. While the shelling is wrong, it couldn't have fit AI's brief to condemn it.

It isn't a human rights issue in the same way that holding a person in a cell and torturing them is.

And besides, condemning the shellings is pointless, since it can never change anything.

On AI's website under our work they list on their agenda/brief not just as you say only individual prisoners of conscience, but also everything you claim is not on their agenda/brief and much much more. They are all listed as human rights issues contrary to your assertion that they are not the same.



From AI's website



Human Rights Issues





Prisoners and People at Risk
Prisoners and people at risk are those whose human rights have been violated or are under threat of violation.





Poverty and Human Rights
Everyone, everywhere has the right to live with dignity. That means that no one should be denied their rights to adequate housing, food, water and sanitation, and to education and health care.





Death Penalty
The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state.





Security and Human Rights
Amnesty International insists that states must respect human rights in any actions they take in the name of national security or countering terrorism.





Refugee and Migrant Rights
Every day across the world refugees, migrants and internally displaced persons make the difficult decision to leave their homes.





Torture
Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must stop. Those responsible for authorizing it must be held accountable.





Women's Rights
Living free from violence is a human right. Yet millions of women and girls around the world encounter rape, domestic abuse, mutilation and other forms of gender-based violence.





Children's Rights
Across the world, children are denied their human rights. They miss out on their right to education. They are abandoned and left to fend for themselves on the street. They are recruited into armed forces. They are subjected to the death penalty and suffer many other forms of violence.





Censorship and Free Speech
Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference.





Business and Human Rights
Privatization and economic globalization have given companies unprecedented access to new territories, and expanded their reach across national borders.





LGBT Rights
All people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity should enjoy equal human rights.





Military, Police and Arms
By encouraging governments to act responsibly in this area, Amnesty International USA seeks to prevent or minimize violations or abuses of humanitarian and human rights law.





International Justice
International justice is the cooperation between countries to hold accountable individuals accused of grave human rights abuses, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues

[azurnoir]

52. and by condemning both sides for each of them causing civilian casualties

Amnesty fulfilled it's mission as both the civilian populations of Israel and Gaza are "at risk" as you quite proudly pointed out last week Israel knowingly bombed the home of a PCR leader and did so without any regard for his families presence in the home

[azurnoir]

21. what about the 'terrorists' children? I guess they don't count

AI's comment was about the death(s) of civilians, are you inferring that AI considers terrorists civilian or is it that in your opinion civilians in the vicinity or that happen to be the children of said terrorists simply do not count?

[shira]

26. They do count, but do you believe Israel's response in the past week is just as bad as...

...as the terror attacks?

[Ken Burch]

27. the "terror attacks" are not the only issue here.

It's absurd to talk about them in isolation.

It's enough that I disagree with what Hamas has done.

[shira]

30. Yes, Hamas are oppressed victims who shouldn't take any responsibility for any of their actions...

...whether against Israelis or Palestinians. Especially Palestinians, right Ken? It's enough you just disagree with what they do....

You've made yourself perfectly clear.

When do they ever become responsible for their actions, Ken?

[Ken Burch]

32. Not Hamas...the people of Palestine.

Hamas isn't oppressed...and it's pointless to condemn it, since public condemnations never achieve anything in matters like this.

The way to stop Hamas is to make it irrelevant, by ending the oppression of the people of Palestine.

You KNOW it's not possible to defeat Hamas militarily(since military victory or defeat isn't possible for any side in this dispute).

You KNOW that it's not reasonable to expect the people of Gaza to rise against Hamas simply because the Israeli government wishes them to do so.

The answer is negotiations. That's always been the answer.

[shira]

34. Those who advertise being for universal human rights don't get to claim...

...that criticism of certain regimes is pointless. They are required to stand up for people who can't do so for themselves, like for example Palestinian victims of Hamas/PLO (like generations of refugees still rotting in camps under their supervision), or women and gays in Gaza, children used as militants or shields, etc....

Amnesty is a disgrace and nothing like what they used to be.

It's shameful sticking up for that.

[Ken Burch]

37. They do stand up for Palestinian victims of Hamas/PLO

It's just that they don't defend the Occupation. That's your REAL objection to Amnesty.

It would be a betrayal of Amnesty's mission for them to do what you want and to obsess on Hamas to the exclusion of everything else.

[shira]

41. No they don't. They still deny Palestinians are deliberately used as human shields, for example.

Covering for crimes like those only emboldens Palestinian terrorists who will continue to endanger more Palestinians in their war against Israel. They get a free pass to use Palestinians in any way they wish, using the refugees in camps as well. You don't care so why should they?

The reason AI denies is to attempt to demonize the IDF by lying about civilian to combatant kill ratios, etc.... They don't do this WRT our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan or NATO (both of whom are far worse than Israel WRT civilian to combatant kill ratios) so it's clearly discriminatory and borderline antisemitic. If you don't believe it's antisemitic then consider the EUMC working def'n of antisemitism. Amnesty has routinely libeled Israel (think blood libel), holds Israel to a different standard than any other democracy in the world, covers for anti-Jew terrorism, and hosts antisemites in forums.

It's sick.

And apparently you agree with it.

[azurnoir]

53. I see this Palestinians used as human sheilds by Palestinian militants or terrorists

floated quite frequently, however it should be noted that Israel shows little respect as to presence of family members or civilians when it wants to assassinate someone and this has been shown repeatedly over the years, making this a questionable charge. IDF however has quite clearly used Palestinians as human shields on repeated occasions, forcing Palestinian civilians including children to enter areas that IDF feared booby trapped in one way or another ahead of them

an exception would be during OCL when Gaza residents would get on the roof tops of their homes to attempt to stop IAF from bombing them, it worked for a short time then IAF came up with what was called "thump on the roof" a single non-explosive dropped on the roof to scatter the residents of the dwellings if they did not leave regardless of whether they were able, they then were cynically IMO called "human shields"

[shira]

56. Of course, contrary to all evidence Palestinian terrorists do not intentionally shield themselves...

...when firing rockets into Israel, use mosques, schools, and hospitals for cover, etc.

If you don't wish to believe it, it's as if it never happened and you don't have to defend the indefensible....

I get it.

[azurnoir]

59. again - IDF shows little compunction as to location when it comes to firing back

so how id this using 'human shields' when facts show it does not work?

[shira]

12. Are there any Amnesty supporters here who wish to defend AI's report that NGO-M blasted? n/t

[azurnoir]

19. Amnesty did it's job which is to report Human rights abuses, not to be a scorekeeper

between sides, NGO Monitor's 'criticism' or whatever you wish to call it, is IMO pretty thin it's duty is about the 'slights' to Israels 'honor' which in this case is quite a stretch especially seeing as how Israel admits if not boasts of bombing the home of a PCR 'leader' without regard to the presence of his family at the time of the bombing.

However I do note a tendency for Israels supporters to call the death of Israeli civilians as being the intent but the death of Palestinians or Arabs at the hands of Israeli's is collateral. leading to appearance that Arab lives are lessor in worth to some while IMO the death of civlians on both sides is wrong regardless of intent dead is dead

[shira]

33. So you believe Hamas' terror = Israel's responses no matter how careful Israel is? n/t

[azurnoir]

39. Israel carefully bombed the home of a terrorist it claimed was a perpetrator of the attack at Eilat

regardless of the presence of children, is that what you call being careful?

AI did its job which one again is to report and condemn human rights abuses period and they did just that what really bothers you and NGO Monitor it seems is that both sides were mentioned as just that both sides, it isn't that Hamas was not mentioned it is that Israel was even if indirectly it seems?

[shira]

42. The terror attack was minimized by AI drawing a false equivalence...

No one would know, just as NGO-M noted, that a horribly vile terror attack on civilians had happened. All readers of AI would know is that both sides do bad stuff. Israeli victims are dehumanized in this way.

:eyes:

It's telling you don't have a problem equating clear terror with Israel's response, and yes it was careful when 12/15 killed were terrorists who deliberately shield themselves among innocents for cover. That kind of response to terror is not disproportionate or against Int'l Law in any way, shape, or form. There's no reason to believe Israel acted with ill intent in their legal response. Terror actions are by def'n illegal in every sense.

And condemning Hamas has nothing to do with this. The terrorists could have been anyone...

[azurnoir]

45. apparently you and NGO Monitor believe that those who read Amnesties reports don't read news media?

"No one would know, just as NGO-M noted, that a horribly vile terror attack on civilians had happened. All readers of AI would know is that both sides do bad stuff. Israeli victims are dehumanized in this way."

that is simply ludicrous, the problem for you once again is that Amnesty stated "both sides" and if you believe bombing a home where children are present is being careful well okay then we obviously have different standards

there was no false equivalence made dead civilians are dead civilians whether the reason for their was ill intentioned or just plain lack of caring

[shira]

46. Amnesty doesn't even describe the Palestinian attacks as terror.

Terror is illegal in every way.

What Israel did in return is not illegal.

It's false equivalence and dehumanization. If it were reversed, Amnesty would publish the names of a Palestinian family killed, take quotes, pictures of the scene, etc. Israeli victims aren't human, however...

[Ken Burch]

48. You don't have to morally privilege the IDF response to Hamas' action

just to avoid "dehumanizing" the Israeli victims.

It's enough to say that it's wrong that the people were killed. That is all that is required. That recognizes the loss and the humanity of those who died. There's no need to say "what Hamas did was wrong-what the IDF did was ok". It's enough to say that it was wrong that people were killed.

[shira]

57. Why bring the IDF into it at all, in order to condemn a nasty terror attack? n/t

[Ken Burch]

58. Because it's not just about Hamas

the IDF killed innocent people in their response. It serves no purpose to say "IDF right-Hamas" wrong-because it simply isn't that simple.

And there's a huge difference between implicating the IDF and denying the humanity of anyone who was killed.

[azurnoir]

49. amnesty treated the civilian victims on both sides equally

that is what seems to be bothering you and NGO Monitor so much, are Palestinian lives worth less than Israeli? Indeed by doing so it is you and NGO Monitor IMO that are dehumanizing the Palestinian civilians killed during Israel's retaliatory strikes it would seem?

[shira]

54. Fine, you agree with AI that Palestinian illegal terror = Israel's legal responses.

Rather than condemn the Palestinian terrorists unequivocally, it's best that the narrative be upheld, cycle of violence and all that as though Israel is no better.

An unprovoked terror attack and its jewish victims simply isn't worthy of its own report.

[shira]

47. Amnesty was just as bad WRT the Itamar massacre. Here's their disgusting report on it...

SPIKE IN WEST BANK VIOLENCE CONDEMNED
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/spike-west-bank-violence-condemned-2011-03-14


They waited several days for any type of false equivalence to condemn in order to minimize the terror attack. The story shows a picture of settlers rather than the crime scene, half the report condemns Israeli and IDF actions, no details of the massacre, no mention of terror, just further dehumanization of a settler family...

Shameful.

Compare to B'tselem which reported almost immediately on the incident unequivocally without any excuses for it...
http://www.btselem.org/israeli_civilians/20110312

[azurnoir]

50. Here is what Amnesty said

Amnesty International has condemned the killing of a settler family on Friday evening and called on Israel to halt a continuing wave of reprisal attacks by West Bank settlers against Palestinians.

Five members of the Fogel family were stabbed to death in their home in the West Bank settlement of Itamar, near Nablus.

Since Saturday morning, Israeli settlers have reportedly used stones, Molotov cocktails, guns, clubs and knives to attack Palestinians in vehicles and in their homes in villages and towns across the West Bank. Settlers have also burned fields, cars and property.

"We utterly condemn the killing of the Fogel family in Itamar. There must be a prompt and effective investigation to identify those suspected of involvement and ensure that they are brought to justice in a fair trial," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

[shira]

55. Of course, you believe the Fogel massacre = any settler actions in the days that followed.

Both are equally bad and it was a good thing AI waited a few days in order to include some type of balance in their report.

It's good AI decided not to condemn the attack immediately and unequivocally like B'tselem did.

[azurnoir]

60. AI condemned the killing of the Fogel family but said that did not justify settler attacks

against Palestinians, something you apparently disagree with?

[bemildred]

14. I thought NGO Monitor was an NGO watchdog.

Not a human rights watchdog. Like the "Comment is Free" watchdog watches "Comment is Free".