The British government has just issued an official report called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Annual Human Rights & Democracy Report, which "provides an assessment of global human rights development in 2018 and reports on the human rights situation in the 30 human rights priority countries." Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Hamas are included in the document. According to the Times of Israel, it:
"[S]aw continued violations by the Israeli government of international human rights and international humanitarian law in the context of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, including an increase in settler violence. While Israel's 'robust democracy' is acknowledged, the report expressed concern over 'pressure' exerted on members of civil society who criticize Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. The document also expressed worries that last year's Jewish nation-state law could 'undermine' the rights of non-Jewish minorities. At the same time, the report accused both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas of 'continued human rights abuses'." (New UK human rights report accuses Israel of 'continued violations', Raphael Ahren, 7/6/19)
Note the document's spurious balancing act as reflected in the above news report. These days, sadly, whether such a report on Israeli massacres of Palestinians emanates from the United Nations itself, or from such human rights NGOs as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, it will invariably, and more to the point, criminally, be contaminated by the said spurious balancing act, and hence act as a cover for Israel's serial crimes against the Palestinians.*
It is only the meticulous scholarship of Norman Finkelstein, in his 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, with its laser-like analysis of reports by Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council in particular - listed on the book's contents pages as Betrayal 1 and Betrayal 2 - which alerts us to the depth of this pernicious practice.
To show you what I mean, I intend, in my next two posts, to quote substantially from Betrayal 2, specifically under the (as will be seen ironic) heading, "Hamas War Crimes" (pp 315-324). I hope, in light of this new British government report, you'll bear with me and stay along for the ride. I can assure you that if you have any regard for the facts of the matter, it'll be well worth it.
Finally, do not hesitate to buy, order or steal a copy of Finkelstein's book!
[*As Finkelstein warns us on p 310 of his book: "In general, balance is an admirable quality: it connotes nonpartisanship and objectivity. But balancing out a wildly imbalanced balance sheet amounts to a partisan act of misrepresentation. The findings of UN-appointed commissions in other situations do take note of grossly lopsided balance sheets."]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The starting point, according to international law, is to understand just who is occupied and who is the occupier. Isn't that obvious?
It follows, according to international law, that the occupier has an OBLIGATION to PROTECT the civilian population, not a licence to oppress the civilian population.
Of course, according to international law the occupied have a right not only to resist the occupation but to take the fight to the territory of the occupier, this is not 'terrorism.' Let's add 'international law' to the equation to actually arrive at the correct 'balance.'
I would appreciate just one example of the Bandit State following international law or UN resolutions. Their is one exception: the Bandit State followed to the letterthe UN resolution equating Zionism with racism. this resolution was later rescinded under duress. Nevertheless the facts speak for themselves.
I thought the 'balancing act' was the objective reporting of human rights violations. When a nation and its defence forces violate human rights and international law, it relinquishes it's right to mitigation.
Post a Comment