ziggurat:
"HRW and Amnesty International are certainly very critical of Israel, but I've never heard them make comparative statements to the effect that they are among the worst human rights offenders. So until you produce evidence to that effect, I'm going to assume you're lying.
Your statement also doesn't match up to simple, common-sense scrutiny. Where are the mass graves in Israel? Where is the systematic torture of dissidents for merely speaking criticism of the government? Oh, yeah, they don't have those."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was tempted to ignore your post, your assumption that I am lying hardly encourages a response. However, for what it`s worth I`ll ignore that and give it a go.
In reports by many agencies there is a certain amount of "diplomatic language" in much the same way as there is in international politics but despite the moderated language, I think the output of the major agencies does suggest that they consider Israel a leading violator of human rights.
B’tselem have stated that Israeli’s discriminatory laws and policies create "a system of segregation with discrimination by law . . . it is doubtful that any comparable system has existed since the end of apartheid in South Africa." (
www.btselem.org/English/Settlers_Violence/ Dual_Legal_System.asp )
This language is qualified but still a strong condemnation of an Israel policy that has had no comparison since the end of Apartheid. There are many more examples of such language if you care to look.
That said, sometimes, they are surprisingly blunt. For example, Amnesty’s 22nd May 2003 Press Release, "Amnesty International: G8 Countries Arm Human Rights Violators," condemns the G8 for "arming and supplying some of the world's worst abusers of human rights." In this they cite three examples of "the world’s worst abusers of human rights" and those who arm them. The examples they cite are France’s supply of small arms to Senegal, US aid to Columbia and the UK’s shipments of "heads up displays" to Israel. (web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL300012003).
I think this is about as clear as one could wish it to be.
quote:
"The actions that do the most discredit to the UN are not done by the US, or by Syria, or even Sudan (though their apointment to the human rights commision does make a mockery of the UN). What discredits the UN more than anything else is the action of their own employees. Men like Benon Sevan, who was charged with overseeing the oil-for-food program to aid the Iraqi civilian population but instead accepted bribes and looked the other way while Saddam plundered his nation to build palaces. Men like Kofi Anan, who ignored warnings of the planned genocide in Rwanda, and got promoted for his efforts. And the list goes on"
Well, as for your comments on the UN OFF programmes, the investigations, as I understand, are still proceeding and no conclusive proof has been discovered (the charges are made by Chalabi, aren't they? -hardly a reliable source, just ask the CIA...).
The allegations of corruption against UN officials originated with Ahmed Chalabi who has virtually sole access to the papers of the old regime. It's impossible to establish the provenance of these documents - no-one knows what's been added, changed, destroyed or forged.
Chalabi now cheerfully admits to having provided false WMD "evidence" - it's reasonable to suppose he wouldn't be adverse to falsifying other records to serve a political purpose.
As far as I know, the papers that appear to show pay-offs to UN officials have not been forensically examined. This is baffling - in a genuine financial investigation, this should have been the first step - certainly one taken before rushing to the press. Chalabi is refusing to hand-over the relevant documents to the CPA for investigation - again, strange behaviour.
I think we may have to wait for the outcome of all this before we can speak catagorically about it.
On your point about the UN and Rwanda -perhaps you are correct but, if so, they were not alone. Documents declassified earlier this year show that Bill Clinton's administration knew of the genocide as early as January 1994 but "buried" the information to "justify its inaction".
According to the documents "Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene" (Rory Carroll in the Guardian (London) March 31st 2004).
Your point about Kofi Annan is largely irrelevent seeing as Boutros Boutros-Ghali was secretary general at the time of the genocide.
