# Amnesty International and Hamas

Discussion in 'World Events' started by BenTheMan, Feb 19, 2009.

1. ### quadraphonicsBloodthirsty BarbarianValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,391
They don't ONLY go after the EASIEST targets. They focus their resources where they will have the most effect. For example, reminding everyone every year that, say, Burma has a terrible human rights situation doesn't accomplish anything. Everyone already knows that, and if there were anything obvious that we could do about it, we'd be doing it already.

Anyway, here is an explicit statement from them:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR23/006/2007/en/dom-AMR230062007en.pdf

Who are you to say what they're job is? Last I checked, they're official mission was "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."

Tell that to the Burmese junta.

It's not "my assessment," it's their actual stated mission, and it's not subject to your agreement.

So you're as ignorant as most people. That sure proves something about AI...

That's because they have been able to investigate Palestinian abuses. This very thread is about a report they issued criticizing Hamas, remember?

3. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,823
They chose that region in the first place, to be half of and take most of, so you can't say they had any right, or that it was fair.

The comparison with Mexicans in Texas comes to mind - if they split Texas into parts with most of the water and port facilities in their part, declared a country, made Catholicism the official religion with many privileges, and blockaded the roads and ports of the Protestant whites to starve them into submission.

And that was justified by overseas Catholics, who pointed to the second class treatment the dominant Protestant whites had meted out to the Mexicans.

5. ### Buffalo RoamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
16,931
HUH????????? been into the Ganga again, with a little LSD on the side.

7. ### StrawDogdisseminated primatemaiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,373
No. Substantiate this statement.

8. ### StrawDogdisseminated primatemaiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,373
On xenophobia, Impossible my friend.

On so what, its called a FOREIGN invasion.

9. ### pjdude1219The biscuit has risenValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,301
um spain was catholic. mexico was catholic. any protestant influence would have come from the british and americans.

10. ### CptBorkValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,355
I'm sure most Palestinians are tired of fighting at this point and are hoping for a negotiated compromise. Even of those who voted for Hamas, I know there were several reasons they did this and most of them weren't voting for an escalation in the fighting. I never said their entire society is radicalist, but I think there are enough radicals in their population that it severely obstructs the chances of making peace.

Yeah, I believe in unconditional talks as well. I don't see how it could hurt Israel at this point to sit down with Hamas and talk to them face to face. The worst thing that could happen is that no agreement is reached, and a date for further talks is not set. If this were the case, I don't see how Hamas would gain any further legitimacy for such talks. Besides, Egypt has been a crappy mediator, telling Israel and Hamas to fake their acceptance of a truce while rejecting it in secret- how does that benefit anyone other than Mubarak?

My only gripe is that I really doubt any progress will come of such talks. I want to see the international community come up with a plan to enforce some measure of progress and to punish efforts to obstruct it. That would give both Israel and Hamas a legitimate incentive to sit down for talks, even if they think the effort is futile. My other concern is that Hamas has given hints they would use a 10 year hudna to arm themselves and prepare for a full-scale clash with Israel. So I'd like to see some sort of international guarantees that if Hamas were to declare war after 10 years of arming, Israel would either have a wide leash to respond with immense force, or else the international community would step in and occupy Gaza on Israel's behalf. To be fair to the Palestinians, the international community could commit to economic and military sanctions against Israel in the event it were to re-initiate hostilities.

Yeah, but the Iranians were also demanding the formation of an islamic state in Iraq modelled on their own state, and they spent roughly 7 years in pursuit of this goal after having already driven Saddam back across the border with his tail between his legs. If the Iraqis wanted such a state, they would have been perfectly capable of electing it on their own, especially if Saddam Hussein were to have stepped down as Iran had demanded. Anyhow this is not a big deal to me, I'm only pointing out that Iran has shown a measure of aggressive behaviour of its own. When Saddam pounded Iranian civilians, Iran responded in kind with Iraqi civilians, and this is not the action of an enlightened pacifist state.

Only Israeli commanders themselves know their true motives. We can speculate until hell freezes over about various conspiracies, the point is that attacks were being staged from Lebanon on a regular basis, these attacks weren't a joke (i.e. hostage takings inside Israel), and Israel was entitled to some measure of self-defense. Perhaps they went too far and exceeded all reasonable bounds, that's a separate issue from the factors that sparked the fighting in the first place.

I thought about it a bit and one good example of the sort I was asking for, might be Israel's bombing of Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80's. Up until that point I don't believe Saddam had been involved in any attacks on Israel (I could be wrong), but in that incident I would like to point out that Israel had tacit approval from a lot of other countries in the region, and even permission to use Jordan's airspace for the operation.

Again, the IAEA began its investigations after receiving reports from Iranian dissidents about covert nuclear activities. They cited specific locations and projects which Iran eventually admitted to after repeated prodding, and these locations are now under IAEA supervision. However, the dissidents also alleged other locations where Iran is conducting more sensitive research, on projects that would be relevant to a nuclear weapons program. In addition, Iran has already revealed designs for nuclear warheads purchased from suppliers such as A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani proliferator.

So the dissidents are 1 for 1 as far as batting average is concerned, and the IAEA has yet to look into their more sensitive allegations. Does this constitute a smoking gun? Of course not. If Iran were indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, would that justify attacking it? I don't see how, given that other countries are allowed to possess such weapons with relative impunity. I do however think that it fully legitimizes the west's pursuit of missile defenses, and that many westerners who were opposed to such a system in the past now understand its merits (thanks, Kim Jong Il!). I also think that until such time as Iran earns the west's trust, the west is fully justified in using economic pressure to deter them.

Iranian black ops in Lebanon and Gaza are arguably contributing to their misery on a daily basis, by fuelling endless conflict.

And it's a fact that the arabs were the ones to declare war on Israel, not the other way around. So Israel has a right to defensible borders as compensation, and that's what the UN gave them in 1948. Look at Kosovo for instance- they sought independence through relatively peaceful means, Serbia sent troops in and tried to repress them with force, and now Kosovo is recognized as a sovereign nation, even though that land once clearly belonged to Serbia and still has ethnic Serbs living there.

Again, I agree. I'm not enthusiastic about unconditional talks though. Unless there's some kind of charm factor from meeting face to face, whatever concessions would be made in such talks could have been made already through existing channels.

Fair enough. I'd like to see a backup plan in the event Hamas doesn't change its tune.

Arabs were oppressing jews a thousand years before the creation of modern Israel (i.e. the dhimmitude system). Maybe their treatment was better than what the Europeans were doing, but that hardly merits a commendation. I think it's a lot more complicated than simply saying that the arabs are responding to the actions of Israel. Then I can just as easily say that Israel is responding to the actions of the arabs.

I never did claim that. All I said was that most muslim countries are well known for their persecution and discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and that needs to be addressed before you suggest something equivalent to reuniting Yugoslavia in the middle of its civil war.

Yeah they definitely do need help, I never questioned that. So do the Tamils in Sri Lanka. But to genuinely help these people, the actions of the militants in their midst have to be taken into account. It's not acceptable for Hamas to fire at Israel from densely populated areas, knowing Israel has almost no way of preventing such things without causing civilian casualties.

If any Ottoman rulers want to take exception to Israel's 1948 declaration of independence on lands purchased under their watch, let these Ottoman rulers step forth and make their case.

Actually, if you take a look at the daily tally of rockets fired from Gaza during the war, you'd see a steady decline from an initial barrage of 80 per day down to little more than 10 per day at the end, at which point Israel called off its offensive. I firmly believe Israel could have brought that average down to nearly 0 if they kept going, the only question is how much more devastation would Gaza have endured. The world opposes Israel's recent action because of the price Gazans paid, not because it wasn't securing Israelis.

11. ### ExeterRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
119
So eloquently stated. so clearly defined. Your quote is the poetry of truth.

12. ### S.A.M.uniquely dreadfulValued Senior Member

Messages:
72,824
How many foreigners had moved in and occupied Kosovo?

Arguments from zionists always ignore the basic fact that it's an occupation by Europeans. Just because there were Syrian Christians in India did not change the fact the fact that the British were occupiers and foreigners. Having the Syrians for several thousand years did not make it alright for Christians to occupy us.

Note that the Tamils in Sri Lanka are equivalent to the Jews, they have a similar history of a past in Lanka

Unlike the Sinhalese, who like the Palestinians, are the native peoples.
The difference in Lanka is, the British did not give away the land to a minority group and the US did not support their occupation with money and arms

13. ### ExeterRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
119
You mean like the U.S. is doing now, by supporting the occupation of Hamas?

14. ### S.A.M.uniquely dreadfulValued Senior Member

Messages:
72,824
Since Hamas was elected, that's a joke. And since there is settlement building going on in the west bank and food aid is still blocked by the IOF, you need a reality check

15. ### ExeterRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
119
Gee, do you mean the Israelis are so backed up against the wall that they cannot afford to feed Hamas? Talk to the Palistinians about that one, then proceed with your own reality check.

Messages:
72,824
I prefer to get my news from the Mercy Corps who are furious at the hold up of food (not to mention the $1000 per truck "handling fee" the Israelis are milking out of the situation). They've been letting in barely 100 trucks when 500 are required. All exits are blocked as usual which means that the Israels literally have their fingers around the throats of the Palestinians and are squeezing only hard enough to make sure they don't die from it. 17. ### Buffalo RoamRegistered Senior Member Messages: 16,931 http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11274019.html Hamas Blocks Israeli Food Shipments, Intentionally Starves Gaza Civilians To Create A Humanitarian Disaster - Again! Like great music, the old classics of pathological terrorism cum intentional complicity never die. Last time Hamas pulled this stunt they were refusing to bring food into Gaza from any point other than the Karni crossing - which by a strange coincidence Israel had just closed off because of a specific threat against that specific crossing. Then they screamed hysterically about how the evil Zionists were starving them - a claim dutifully picked up by Reuters and the Red Cross. Now it's vegetables: Hamas's Finance Ministry on Monday barred Israeli fruits and vegetables from entering the Gaza Strip... The Hamas decision will also make it harder for Palestinians to keep fruits and vegetables in their diet, particularly those items not grown in Gaza... Upon hearing that Palestinian private contractors on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom crossing planned to adhere to the prohibition, Israeli businessmen did not send out the scheduled 60 trucks of produce... The fruit and vegetable ban is the latest in a set of anti-Israel moves by Hamas, including continued mortar fire on the crossing, to keep Kerem Shalom closed. On Saturday, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said, "We are against opening the Zionist-controlled crossing of Kerem Shalom." Hamas has actually been stopping Israeli humanitarian assistance at all the crossings. In June they set up roadblocks to block ambulances from evacuating people murdered during their "we were elected so we're going to take power" rout of Fatah. Last week they actually threatened to mow down Palestinians trying to return to their families through the Kerem Shalom crossing: In an effort to allow the stranded Palestinians to return home, the IDF recently offered to Egypt to open the Kerem Shalom crossing - which connects Israel, Gaza and Egypt - to pedestrian travel. Egypt contacted Hamas and, according to Israeli officials, was told that if Kerem Shalom was opened they would attack the crossing with mortars and gunfire, even at the price of killing thousands of Palestinians. Israel immediately canceled the plans and is waiting to see if Egypt succeeds in convincing 18. ### S.A.M.uniquely dreadfulValued Senior Member Messages: 72,824 More propaganda. Go to the mercy corps website. They are distributing the food. Not Zionist hate sites. They are using Kerem Shalom because if they use Karli with it's scanners they can let in 750 trucks a day and would not need to offload the trucks. Or get$1000 dollars "handling" fee.

This way they can starve the Palestinians and make money from the process

19. ### ExeterRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
119
You obviously are extremely ill informed. Please begin to check into non-agenda driven organizations. And by all means, at least put a little insight into your figures.

20. ### ExeterRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
119
This is getting a little wacky. I would just as soon go to the Obama website.

21. ### S.A.M.uniquely dreadfulValued Senior Member

Messages:
72,824
Yeah I too should stop getting my news from the people actually encountering the Israeli bull shit and instead get it from those who are covering up for it.

Disgusting

22. ### Buffalo RoamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
16,931
Yes, SAM, you are Disgusting

23. ### S.A.M.uniquely dreadfulValued Senior Member

Messages:
72,824
Try it out Buffalo.

You got grandkids? Cut their food intake give them only one in every five meals.

Let me know how they grow. The Palestinian children are stunted by four years.

Think of that everytime you see them eat. For every five times your grandchildren eat, the Palestinian children eat once. And this is not accidental. This is deliberate policy to damage the Palestinians