Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UNwatch video criticising the human rights commision

Comments Filter:
  • It's a total joke and everybody knows it. A few years back the US got kicked off and Libya was chairing it. *cough*
  • First off, this is the argument of a six year old. It doesn't matter if someone else is doing worse - if you're murdering civilians in territory you have conquered and militarily occupied, you should be internationally condemned. Sudanese, Russian, US governments, etc. should both be condemned too - there's plenty of blame to go around - but that doesn't and shouldn't get the Israeli government off the hook.

    Secondly, it isn't even true that the Israeli government is unfairly targeted. Israeli polic
    • by NeMon'ess (160583) *
      It doesn't matter if someone else is doing worse - ... ...you should be internationally condemned. Sudanese, Russian, US governments, etc. should both be condemned too - there's plenty of blame to go around - but that doesn't and shouldn't get the Israeli government off the hook.

      I agree with this.

      Secondly, it isn't even true that the Israeli government is unfairly targeted. Israeli policy is being targeted (as opposed to, say, Sudanese) because the US government has allowed it to commit atrocities with impu
      • While the systemic human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Asia, and the rest of the world continue without action by the UNHRC?

        Firstly, I already said that the UNHRC should sanction those countries. Even though it won't accomplish anything, yeah, they should still do it.

        What is particularly shameful about the speech you linked to is that the speaker implies that the middle eastern monarchies have a long history of antagonism to the Israeli government. In fact, the opposite is true
        • by NeMon'ess (160583) *
          Israel has historically been allied (unofficially or otherwise) with the Saudi, Jordanian and Iranian monarchies, because they share a common enemy: Arab Democracy, not to mention the general Arab population.

          Links?
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          What is particularly shameful about the speech you linked to is that the speaker implies that the middle eastern monarchies have a long history of antagonism to the Israeli government.

          They do. More than my entire lifetime. Not consistently, sure, but largely.

          The vast majority of Israel's ire has been directed against their democratic neighbor, Lebanon, and the non-existent "Palestinian" state (also democratic.)

          Um ... almost entirely because their two "democratic" neighbors have been attacking and threatening Israel since its newfound existence. The day after the UN created Israel, Palestinians started executing Jews to drive them out of "their land," and they have not yet stopped. "Democracy" has nothing to do with it.

          Egypt was a favorite enemy during a relatively demoratic period

          And they also achieved peace with Egypt during that same period.

          and post-revolutionary Iran - which isn't quite a democracy but beats hell out of Saudi Arabia - has been a main foe.

          And is also not Arab. But that's beside the point:

    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      First off, this is the argument of a six year old. It doesn't matter if someone else is doing worse - if you're murdering civilians in territory you have conquered and militarily occupied, you should be internationally condemned. Sudanese, Russian, US governments, etc. should both be condemned too - there's plenty of blame to go around - but that doesn't and shouldn't get the Israeli government off the hook.

      The argument you attack is not the argument UN Watch made. He did not say Israel should not be blamed, but that the HRC was not fulfilling its obligations by hyperfocusing on Israel and ignoring problems elsewhere.

      Secondly, it isn't even true that the Israeli government is unfairly targeted.

      Yes, it is. It is painfully obviously true.

      Israeli policy is being targeted (as opposed to, say, Sudanese) because the US government has allowed it to commit attrocities with impunity. Therefore, the UNHRC needs to act. If the US government were serious about doing anything about Darfur, it wouldn't need a UNHRC motion to do so. Yeah, UNHRC should condem Sudan, fine. But there's a reason to condemn Israel first and more loudly - because it might actually accomplish something.

      Um ... so where is the condemnation for Sudan? We're waiting ... not only did they not condemn Sudan, the put Sudan on the Commission. This argument would make sense if they had actually condemned Sudan at some point.

      (And no, Sudan has never been c

      • I am giving a justification to the distinct targeting of Israel. The distinctions - which are distinctions of effectiveness, and of international power relations - are a *fair* basis for differences in action.

        Did you actually *listen* to the speech the guy gave? Do you know who he is? I could care less how UNWatch characterizes someone's speech - I listened to what he actually said, which was not "you should condemn Sudan since you're condemning Israel," which is a fair sentiment to which I agree.
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          I am giving a justification to the distinct targeting of Israel.

          Yes, you are trying to justify unfair treatment of Israel. (And you are failing.)

          The distinctions - which are distinctions of effectiveness, and of international power relations - are a *fair* basis for differences in action.

          No, they are not. Singling them out is absolutely antithetical to Justice.

          What he said was "because you aren't condemning Sudan, you can't condemn Israel" - which is a childish argument.

          Their condemnations have no legitimacy if they are not dealt out fairly. This is a fundamental precept of Justice, that it must be applied the same way to people guilty of the same crimes, else it simply is unjust.

          Iran is *not* the main financier of terrorist organizations within the occupied territories. The main financiers have been Israel itself and Saudi Arabia (I already posted links.)

          I never said they were. Learn to read. I said they have been the #1 financier of *terrorism against Israel.* And, actually, they stil

          • When the US criticized the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan, did that criticism lack moral force because the US failed to accept criticism of it's own invasion of Vietnam?

            Yeah, the US was hypocritical. Those who care about justice care about justice for the victims of the Soviet invasion - the question of US hypocrisy is very minor.

            As there, so also here.

            Learn to read.
            Hysterical. Let us apply an elementary test of literacy.
            UNHRC = United Nations Human Rights Council. This is what the
            • by NeMon'ess (160583) *
              Here is fine by me. It's easier for me to find.
            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              When the US criticized the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan, did that criticism lack moral force because the US failed to accept criticism of it's own invasion of Vietnam?

              It was lessened, yes.

              Learn to read.

              Hysterical. Let us apply an elementary test of literacy.
              UNHRC = United Nations Human Rights Council. This is what the thread is about since this is the body that is condemning Israel but not Sudan. The speech in the video is before the UNHRC.
              UNCHR = United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This is another body; Libya was chair, Sudan was on it.

              Sigh. I said they (the UN) put Sudan on the COMMISSION, not the COUNCIL. Then you incorrectly responded to me about the Council, and I didn't notice you switched contexts, either to enagage in deception, or because you could not understand the word "Commission."

              And yes, this speech was before the Council, but it was in the context of the long history of condemnations of Israel, which the Council has only been involved in for a year, when it was created in 2006. Before that, it was

              • I'll see how much of this I can get through today.

                Then you incorrectly responded to me about the Council, and I didn't notice you switched contexts, either to enagage in deception, or because you could not understand the word "Commission."

                It's completely obvious from your replies that you didn't know the difference between the UNHRC and the UNHCR. The gracious response would be to admit your error, rather than to imply that I was trying to trap or deceive you; you chose to make a fool of yourself, it's not anything I did. *I* was not the one who switched contexts. The original discussion was about the Council, not the Commission, which I hadn't mentioned.

                Yeah, UNHRC should condem Sudan, fine. But there's a reason to condemn Israel first and more loudly - because it might actually accomplish something.

                Um ... so where is the condemnation for Sudan? We're waiting ... not only did they not condemn Sudan, the put Sudan on the Commission. This argument would make sense if they had actually condemned Sudan at some point.

                You might also want to know some relevant facts - Sudan is not on the UNHRC.

                Um, actually, yes, it is. I think it's hilarious you accuse me of ignorance for an opinion, and then immediately thereafter state something which is unequivocally false.

                There's certainly no point in you telling me these things, as you know far less about it than I do.

                I get it! You are making a cons

                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  It's completely obvious from your replies that you didn't know the difference between the UNHRC and the UNHCR.

                  False. It is you who first made that error.

                  The gracious response would be to admit your error, rather than to imply that I was trying to trap or deceive you

                  I implied no such thing. What I implied was that you simply made a reading error, which I think you'll agree was the case.

                  There's certainly no point in you telling me these things, as you know far less about it than I do.

                  I get it! You are making a conscious effort to look like a sophomoric buffoon.

                  Heh. You're the one who is professing to teach me things I know better than you do. *shrug*

                  In your wide readings on history - you might know that Israel had initially funded Hamas.

                  And the Arab League initially put a man who wanted to destroy Israel in charge of the Palestinians.

                  Israeli forces have killed numerous Palestinian civilians

                  Yes, while repelling attacks, or going after terrorists. Collateral damage of civilians is bad, but not as bad as targetting them, which Israel doe

                  • It's completely obvious from your replies that you didn't know the difference between the UNHRC and the UNHCR.

                    False. It is you who first made that error.

                    Nu-uh.

                    MEYeah, UNHRC should condem Sudan, fine. But there's a reason to condemn Israel first and more loudly - because it might actually accomplish something.

                    This is the original comment, to which you replied. You will notice that I use the initials UNHRC, which is also the organization in the original video, thus, the original topic.

                    Um ... so where is the condemnation for Sudan? We're waiting ... not only did they not condemn Sudan, the put Sudan on the Commission. This argument would make sense if they had actually condemned Sudan at some point.

                    And here is your reply, wherein you bring up the (defunct) UNCHR - at first I thought you were simply failing to stay on topic, but....

                    MEYou might also want to know some relevant facts - Sudan is not on the UNHRC. *Libya* was elected to the UNCHR (the predecessor organization) years ago.

                    And here I am explaining the difference between the two. You will notice that I use *both* abbreviations.
                    I avoid using the term "Commission" not because I don't know what it means, but bec

                    • by iminplaya (723125)
                      UNHRC = United Nations Human Rights Council. This is what the thread is about since this is the body that is condemning Israel but not Sudan. The speech in the video is before the UNHRC.
                      UNCHR = United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This is another body; Libya was chair, Sudan was on it.


                      Dyslexic nightmare! That's what this is. Poor Helen Keller. Now I know how she must have felt after some joker re-arranged the furniture. At least half of this discussion carried some reason and logic. In true Slashdot m

Remember: use logout to logout.

Working...