Amnesty Interantional Report 2005

[Jack Rabbit]

From Amnesty International
Dated Wednesday May 25

Amnesty International Report 2005

During 2004, the human rights of ordinary men, women and children were disregarded or grossly abused in every corner of the globe. Economic interests, political hypocrisy and socially orchestrated discrimination continued to fan the flames of conflict around the world. The “war on terror” appeared more effective in eroding international human rights principles than in countering international “terrorism”. The millions of women who suffered gender-based violence in the home, in the community or in war zones were largely ignored. The economic, social and cultural rights of marginalized communities were almost entirely neglected.

Read more.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Summary from AI Report 2005: Israel and the Occupied Territories

From Amnesty International
Dated Wednesday May 25

Israel and the Occupied Territories

The Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force. Palestinian armed groups killed 109 Israelis — 67 of them civilians and including eight children — in suicide bombings, shootings and mortar attacks. Stringent restrictions imposed by the Israeli army on the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories caused widespread poverty and unemployment and hindered access to health and education facilities. The Israeli army destroyed several hundred Palestinian homes, large areas of agricultural land, and infrastructure networks. Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a fence/wall through the West Bank, confining Palestinians in isolated enclaves cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages. Israeli settlers increased their attacks against Palestinians and their property and against international human rights workers. Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes, including unlawful killings; extensive and wanton destruction of property; obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel; torture; and the use of Palestinians as “human shields”. The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity.

Background

In February Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced the “disengagement plan”, to evacuate all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the West Bank, while maintaining military control of all land and sea access to the Gaza Strip, and of its airspace. In October Prime Minister Sharon’s bureau chief publicly stated that the evacuation of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip was intended to strengthen Israeli control of much of the West Bank, where more than 100 Israeli settlements are located. Israel started to build a network of secondary roads and tunnels in the West Bank intended to keep existing main roads for the sole use of Israeli settlers. No steps were taken to implement the “road map” peace plan, agreed the previous year by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) and sponsored by the USA, the UN, the European Union and Russia. After the death of PA President Yasser Arafat in November, the “road map” sponsors expressed renewed interest in its implementation and urged Israel and the PA to resume peace negotiations within its framework.

Read more.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Summary from AI Report 2005: Palestinian Authority

From Amnesty International
Dated Wednesday May 25

Palestinian Authority
Covering events from January - December 2004

The internal security situation deteriorated significantly in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during 2004. Power struggles and disagreements between and within the Palestinian Authority (PA), and political factions and groups resulted in increasingly frequent armed confrontations, attacks on individuals and property, and abductions. Palestinian armed groups and members of various security services also killed some 18 Palestinians who allegedly “collaborated” with the Israeli security services. Members of Palestinian armed groups continued to carry out attacks against Israelis both in the Occupied Territories and inside Israel, killing 109 Israelis. The PA frequently condemned Palestinian attacks against Israelis and Palestinians, but the security forces and judicial authorities were unable or unwilling to prevent and investigate such attacks and bring those responsible to justice

Background

The al-Aqsa intifada (uprising), which started on 29 September 2000, continued. Some 700 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces, many of them unlawfully (see Israel and the Occupied Territories entry). Palestinian members of armed groups killed 109 Israelis, including 67 civilians. About half of them were killed in suicide bombings, generally claimed by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (an offshoot of Fatah) and the ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Hamas). Some of the attacks were claimed by Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Palestinian armed groups also continued to launch mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip towards nearby Israeli cities and Israeli settlements inside the Gaza Strip, killing five Israeli civilians. Thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of Israelis were injured.

Palestinians were hindered or prevented from gaining access to their agricultural land, workplaces and education and health facilities by the Israeli army which set up blockades and imposed stringent restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and carried out repeated military raids into Palestinian towns and villages. The continued construction of a 600km fence/wall through the West Bank also cut off towns and villages from each other. As a result unemployment and extreme poverty remained high, with some two thirds of Palestinians forced to rely on international aid.

President Yasser ‘Arafat remained confined to his headquarters in Ramallah until he fell ill and was taken to France for medical care. He died on 11 November. The Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), Rawhi Fattouh, took over as interim President for a 60-day period and presidential elections were scheduled for January 2005.

Read more.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. AI must be anti-Semitic.

:sarcasm:

Well, I might be using sarcasm, but this article isn't: http://www.momentmag.com/archive/aug02/feat2.html

[Jack Rabbit]

4. I think it worth mentioning that this article is two years old

That Jews have been historical victims of persecution does not preclude in any way the fact that other people are as well, including Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

That there are a number of atrocious aspects about Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories does not justify terrorism or anti-Semitism. It is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to settle parts of its own population into occupied territory. It is also a war crime to target non-combatants by setting off a bomb in a cafe or on a commuter bus.

It is very difficult to discuss these issues without somebody on one side or the other charging that one is biased for bringing up the crimes of one side, as if they are justified or just didn't happen.

The fact is that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have a proud record of adhering to standards of human rights or international humanitarian law in this conflict. Each side has been abominable, sometimes with barbaric atrocities and sometimes committing atrocities in more refined and civilized ways. That is one of the reasons why the conflict must end.

[bemildred]

5. There you go, keeping separate things separate again.

:thumbsup:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I agree with that assessment completely.

But let's be fair - the ADL constantly blasts AI as being anti-Israel, as does AIPAC. Just do a google search for "Amnesty International anti-Israel".

That anti-Semitism exists does not give these groups a free pass to label anyone they deem convenient an anti-Semite, which seems a practice all too familiar. As you state, the very fact that they do not just single out Israeli atrocities proves that Amnesty International is in no way anti-Semitic. Palestinians are very guilty as well. In fact, it seems as though half the world is guilty of human rights violations. I do not dispute that in the least - only claims that those who point the finger at Israel are somehow biased for doing so.

[bemildred]

7. To be sure.

You would however do better to post such a piece and debunk it,
rather than drag that issue in here.

Al Jazeera has a story on AI up today:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DFF54C66-6978-4679-AA1A-4E1A94CAD1F0.htm

I haven't been able to figure out if this is the same report or a new one,
although I suspect the ambiguity is not accidental.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I'd be doing it constantly.

It's a regular practice. I unfortunately don't have the time to debunk every last article that comes out to that affect.

I'm not sure what you mean, but the Al Jazeera article seems to directly point to the AI report that was released today.

[bemildred]

9. Checking their site, I see you are right, thanks, that's current.nt

[eyl]

10. Oh, so now

being "anti-Israel" is being antisemetic:-)?

Anyway, while I don't consider AI and its ilk to be antisemetic - or even, strictly speaking, anti-Israeli - I do get the impression they all to often seem to suffer from tunnel vision. Their condemnation of the killing of Yassin is a case in point.

(As I noted elsewhere, I may not be available over the weekend, so if anyone wants to discuss this further - and this thread is inactive by then - drop me a PM).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Yes. It is.

Having been labeled an anti-Semite on hundreds of occasions for doing nothing more than saying what the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem folks have said, yes I think the anti-Israel=anti-Semitism claim is just.

Quote from this article: http://israel.jcca.org/jview/IsraelRhetoric.html

Alan Dershowitz assailed the double standard he finds characteristic of current anti-Israel discourse: "I argue that those who single out Israel for unique criticism not directed against countries with far worse human rights records are themselves guilty of international bigotry. ….So long as criticism is comparative, contextual, and fair, it should be encouraged, not disparaged."

That's a completely ridiculous statement in and of itself. My criticism of Israel does not in any way preclude the fact that there are human rights abuses conducted all over the world. I do not feel I have to disclaimer on every comment I make about Israel with a statement condemning human rights abuses all over the world. My criticism is contextual in the fact that our media reports over 95% of all the Israeli deaths at Palestinian hands, but it only reports approximately 5% of the Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands. In my criticism of Israel, I do not absolve in any way the use of terrorism, I condemn both sides, yet I am in the minority who truly does condemn both sides in this country.

As far as Yassin is concerned, their stance is very consistent. Here is their statement: "Sheikh Yassin could have been arrested and prosecuted." That is no departure from any other condemnations they have ever made.

[drdon326]

12. Wow !!

Having been labeled an anti-Semite on hundreds of occasions for doing nothing more than saying what the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem folks have said, yes I think the anti-Israel=anti-Semitism claim is just.

Please show me one time here.

"I argue that those who single out Israel for unique criticism not directed against countries with far worse human rights records are themselves guilty of international bigotry. ….So long as criticism is comparative, contextual, and fair, it should be encouraged, not disparaged."

absolutely true to me.

My criticism of Israel does not in any way preclude the fact that there are human rights abuses conducted all over the world. I do not feel I have to disclaimer on every comment I make about Israel with a statement condemning human rights abuses all over the world.

disclaimer....no. However perhaps you could put any israeli misdemeaners in context to the pathetic human rights violations of the surrounding counties in the ME.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Some other countries are featured in the thread in Foreign Affairs

Please click here.

I stopped at six.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. AI's single-minded obsessive focus on Israel shines through again!!

Six is nothing! I'll only be persuaded when you stop at sixty six!
Trust AI to produce annual reports that blame Israel for everything! They try to hide their anti-Semitism by pretending to criticise other countries with human rights records that are just as bad as Israel's, but if one looks at the index page carefully, one can easily spot the way Israel was given 'top-billing' by placing the name 'Israel/Occupied Territories' on the index page, in blatant violation of all international law and norms of decency known to mankind. And it gets worse! Has anyone bothered to count the words of each entry?? Us in the know don't need to because there's got to be an as usual highly credible Jerusalem Post article floating round that will point out that Israel's word count is far more than that of Finland and that's just more evidence that Europe is a seething mass of continental anti-Semitism. Was there any mention at all in the entry on Finland about Palestinian Hoomiside Bombers? No. I thought not. That should say it all!!

And I hope everyone else is still livid at the way the Eurovision Song Contest was stolen away from Israel based on nothing more than biased political motives!!

Nyuck nyuck...

Violet...

[Englander]

44. Very good;worthy of an inclusion in the next...

Secret Policeman’s Ball!


"A unique collection of live comedy and music for Amnesty International from seven benefit shows over the years. An A–Z of the most influential comedians of our generation: Rowan Atkinson, Dame Edna Everage, Dawn French, Lenny Henry, Eddie Izzard, Terry Jones etc."

http://www.amnestyshop.org/secretpolice.htm

:7

[eyl]

20. Well

That's a completely ridiculous statement in and of itself. My criticism of Israel does not in any way preclude the fact that there are human rights abuses conducted all over the world. I do not feel I have to disclaimer on every comment I make about Israel with a statement condemning human rights abuses all over the world. My criticism is contextual in the fact that our media reports over 95% of all the Israeli deaths at Palestinian hands, but it only reports approximately 5% of the Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands. In my criticism of Israel, I do not absolve in any way the use of terrorism, I condemn both sides, yet I am in the minority who truly does condemn both sides in this country.

Not quite. No-one is requiring you to condemn all other worse HR abusers before condemning Israel. But when someone (and this doesn't exactly apply to AI - though see CB's posts - and its ilk) focuses solely on Israel, or almost so, when its mandate or declared interests are worldwide HR abuses*, it does raise the suspicion that there's more than concern for human rights at play. For examples, see the recent AUT boycott, or the UN HR Comission (the latter doesn't only condemn Israel, of course, but it does so to a greatly disproportional degree - and as an official body whose job it is to monitor worldwide HR abuses, rather than a "man on the street", that gives considerable pause). As for your point about reportage - first of all, I haven't seen the disproportion you talk about; the Israeli press usually reports on all Palestinian deaths (I read the foreign press as a suplemental rather than a primary news source, so I can't say what goes on there). Second, that applies far less to large organizations, which have other mean sof information gathering.

As far as Yassin is concerned, their stance is very consistent. Here is their statement: "Sheikh Yassin could have been arrested and prosecuted." That is no departure from any other condemnations they have ever made.

That's precisely my point. Arresting Yassin - assuming it could even have been done - would have required an Israeli military operation in Gaza city - the area with the highest population density in the world - which would have ended with dozens of Israeli casualties and hundreds of Palestinian casualties. Inevitably, a cosniderable proportion of those Palestinian casualties would have been civilians (and anyone who thinks otherwise has been watching too many movies). I assume AI would have found that outcome far worse. Yet they never seem to consider that. As I said - tunnel vision.

*unlike, e.g., B'Tselem, which, while it focuses only on HR abuses in the Territories, does so because that's its declared purpose

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. some points

Firstly, as far as the Yassin case is concerned, they can't organizationally make exceptions - it's simply not good policy. If they're going to condemn assassinations, they have to condemn them all. They would lose credibility if they had to be the sole arbiter of whom could legitimately perform such an attack and whom cannot. Maybe it is tunnel vision, but when you are in their shoes, they have no real choice. And if Israel was alone in such condemnation, that'd be one thing, but they are not by any means.

Secondly, I can't speak from any point of knowledge on the AUT boycott. However, without looking at the case, even if it were legitimate, I never claimed there WASN'T anti-Semitism, only that such claims reach with far too broad a hand for the sake of belittling criticism. It COULD be the case for AUT - I do not know. As far as the UN is concerned, there's the little issue of the United States vetoing every resolution criticizing Israel, consistantly being the only ones out of its 191 country membership to vote against such resolutions. That breeds just a tiny bit of frustration, and you can see why there is greater need to try and prove that case.

Speaking of United States bias, I agree - foreign coverage of Israel isn't so lopsided. However, within the United States, the aforementioned figures hold true. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html

[eyl]

36. If they truly feel

that these assassinations are illegitimate - something I don't necessarily agree with, but that's a different topic - they should, of course, condemn them. But AIs condemnation was, in part, for killing Yassin rather than bringing him to trial.

Once again Israel has chosen to violate international law instead of using alternative lawful means. Sheikh Yassin could have been arrested and prosecuted.

A modicum of thought would have suggested that those "alternative, lawful means" they advocate could not have been used in this case. As I said above, even if it would have been possible, any such attempt would have caused hunderds of Palestinian casualties; so basically, AI is placing Israel in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I assume they didn't do that deliberately, so I can only explain it by overly rigorous tunnel vision; otherwise, they should not advocate a patently impossible course of action.

As for the US's vetoes in the UNSC on Israel's behalf; there have been any number of resolutions passed critical of Israel that the US did not vetoed, so I disagree with your contention of frustration. More to the point, why are there so many resolutions against Israel (compared to far worse human rights offenders) in the first place?

[Englander]

25. Here's a spurious analogy;

Would the authorities of the British Mandate
have been justified in deciding to "liquidate",to
assassinate,by using a Spitfire aircraft,or some
other explosive means,any members of Irgun/Lehi?
If they had decided that the terrorists of the
day were to be targeted in an extrajudicial killing,
using the 1940s equivalent of an Apache helicopter
would that be acceptable?

If they had decided to kill Stern,or Shamir,or
any other "terrorist",as they were leaving a synagogue,
say,without any regard for the well-being or safety
of anyone who was in the area,would that be acceptable?
If AI had existed then,& had said that this
action was self-defeating,& illegal,would AI be guilty of "tunnel-vision"?



___________________


From the archives;

"AI Index: MDE 15/029/2004 (Public)
News Service No: 066
22 March 2004

Israel/Occupied Territories: Amnesty International strongly condemns the assassination of Sheikh Yassin
Amnesty International condemns the extrajudicial execution, by the Israeli army, of Hamas’ leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin this morning in the Gaza Strip. The attack also resulted in the unlawful killing of seven other Palestinians and the injury of many more.

"Once again Israel has chosen to violate international law instead of using alternative lawful means. Sheikh Yassin could have been arrested and prosecuted. The Israeli army has arrested tens of thousands of Palestinians in frequent raids in refugee camps, towns and villages throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the past two years," Amnesty International said.

"The assassination of Sheikh Yassin is likely to further escalate the spiral of violence which has claimed the lives of some 2,500 Palestinians and 900 Israelis, most of them civilians, in the past three and a half years."

The 66-year-old Sheikh Yassin, who was paralyzed and wheelchair-bound, was assassinated by Israeli army helicopter-launched missiles as he was leaving the mosque after dawn prayers in Gaza City."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150292004?open&of=ENG-PSE

Edited for clarity.

[eyl]

37. You're right

it's a highly spurious analogy.

Neither the Lehi nor the Etzel were threatening to destroy Britain at the time, nor were they commiting wholesale attacks on civilians in London. More importanetly, the British had control on the ground, so they could (and did) arrest and try them. Note that most (if not all) of the Israeli assassinations occur in place where the Israeli police and the IDF can't go in by ground and arrest the guy. My point is that doing so in Yassin's case was impossible, or at least would have had side-effects which AI (among others) would consider even worse; therefore, their condemnation does show considerable tunnel vision, advocating a course of action without any thought as to whether it's possible or not (or worse, knowing it's not).

[Englander]

38. Well,I know yer fond...

of spurious analogies, which is why I mentioned them.

So,are you saying that if the British Authorities had used
extrajudicial assassinations,that would have been an illegal
& disproportionate response to the threat that Lehi posed?

Or not?

I asked if such an extreme military response would be justified
or acceptable;the question was not about actual history,it was
about a hypothetical situation. If the British Authorities had
decided,say, for the purpose of sending a message,of the
"kill one,warn one hundred" variety,to assassinate Stern,
or Shamir,in a very public & brutal fashion,would that be acceptable?

Also,is this an accurate quote in the AI report;

--The Israeli army has arrested tens of thousands of Palestinians in frequent raids in refugee camps, towns and villages throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the past two years," Amnesty International said.

[eyl]

39. I'm fond of spurious analogies? Really?

In the hypothetical situation, it depends on the circumstances; as they existed then, it wuld not have been acceptable (note there are those who say Stern's death was an assassination). I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

As for your quote; AFAIK, they're overstating the numbers by an order of magnitude. In any event, what does that have to do with the point I'm raising?

[Englander]

40. I was being facetious - would the addition..

of a smiley help?:)

--"In the hypothetical situation, it depends on the circumstances; as they existed then, it wuld not have been acceptable (note there are those who say Stern's death was an assassination). I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it."

Why would it not have been acceptable for the British Authorities
to use tactics that the Iaf employ,if such methods were available?

Stern was clearly an enemy of the state of Palestine,as it
was then.Lehi had declared war on the British Mandate,
& the prosecution of that war involved the use of "terrorism",
against military & civilian targets. Stern decided in the midst of
WWII,that Britain should be fought,rather than the Nazis.He advocated
forming an alliance* with the Axis powers;wouldn't the British authorities be
justified if they'd decided to "make an example" of him,if they'd dispensed
with any legal niceties,& used an extreme military option,instead of arresting him?
(btw,"shot whilst resisting arrest" doesn't qualify
as assassination)

I cannot see why Extrajudicial Assassinations(EA) are acceptable
now,but not acceptable then.I think they are not justified,& it
is not consistent to say that they're acceptable now,but not then.
You can see it's relatively easy to construct an arguement that says
Stern,&tc would've been a "legitimate target";that doesn't mean that
I beleieve that EAs are acceptable.
The point I am making is that EA are wrong;they are only a
short-term "solution". You cannot kill an idea.

--"As for your quote; AFAIK, they're overstating the numbers by an order of magnitude. In any event, what does that have to do with the point I'm raising?"

My point is that the IDf is perfectly capable of arresting
thousands of suspects,if it so chooses.

More from AI,& further details;

"4 July 2003
Israel and the Occupied Territories:
Israel must end its policy of assassinations

>snip

Alternative lawful means to extrajudicial executions

Alternative, lawful means to address threats posed by persons suspected of planning or having participated in attacks against Israelis exist. The Israeli army has proved that it can and does exercise full and effective control over the Occupied Territories, including the areas which fall under the Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. (11)

In the past two years the Israeli army and security services have arrested tens of thousands of Palestinians whom they accuse of having perpetrated, participated in or planned attacks against Israeli soldiers or civilians. Such arrests continue daily throughout the Occupied Territories. Those arrested have been apprehended individually or in groups, in their homes or other private houses, in universities or student dormitories, at their work place or at checkpoints, when moving around openly or while in hiding. On several occasions, in refugee camps or other areas, the Israeli army temporarily detained all males in a certain age bracket (typically between 15-16 and 45-55), in order to check their identities and establish if any of them were wanted. At times Palestinians have been detained by special undercover units operating in Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps.

>snip

In light of the above Amnesty International believes that Israel's claims that it only resorts to assassinations in response to an immediate security threat which cannot be otherwise dealt with, are not credible and that such practices cannot be justified. In most cases Israel has not provided evidence that those who were assassinated by the Israeli army posed an imminent threat to lives which could not be met by other means. In fact there is ample evidence to the contrary. Israel has repeatedly proved that it does have other means at its disposal to deal with such cases, notably by arresting and bringing to justice those suspected of involvement in perpetrating or planning attacks against Israeli civilians or soldiers."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150562003?open&of=ENG-ISR

_________________________________

*
Cover to Cover / Tom Segev

Yair ache
By Tom Segev
Nationalist whining and a torrent of words turn a fascinating biography into a long, confusing and boring book.

"Yair, Roman Biografi" ("Yair, A Biographical Novel") by Moshe Shamir, Zemora-Bitan, 551 pages, NIS 97

Avraham Stern was a Jewish terrorist - admired by many and still admired today. He was the leader of the pre-state underground organization Lohamei Herut Israel (Lehi) that also murdered citizens in the name of the Zionist struggle for national independence. Stern's world view embraced certain elements of Mussolini-style fascism, and at a certain point, he tried to enter into an alliance with Hitler's Germany. But the Nazis, who hated him even more than he hated them, spurned him in favor of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al- Husseini.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=78830&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

[eyl]

43. No hard feelings;

it's just that I've found (at the cost of some embaressment) that on the internet, it's not always clear when someone is joking or not.

Anway, back on topic - your mention of arrests actually demonstrates my point. The IDF* doesn't use assassination exclusively - when possible, it does use arrests instead.

However, that is not always possible. If you were to look at the locations of the assassinations, you'll find that almost all of them, especially since March 2002, take place in the Gaza Strip - in particular, inside cities, especially Gaza City. That's because the IDF eestablished control of the ground in the West Bank in Operation Defensive Shield, but did not do so in Gaza. Because of that, while the IDF can - and does - use arrests in the West Bank, it often can't do so in Gaza. Establishing such control of the territory would require another ODS - at the least, for a one-time arrest, it would require a full-scale military incursion (and since the target of the arrest will likely "drop of the radar" before they can fight their way to him, it's likely to be futile), in the most densely populated area in the world. As I pointed out, that's something that AI ignores.

*Used here as shorthand for "the IDF & the Shabak"

[Colorado Blue]

14. Article about Bias at AI

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Amnesty-International

snip

Criticism and rebuttal

Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories, accusations of selection bias and ideological bias. In addition, many governments, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo<2> (http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/January/Africa/aggression.html),

China<3> (http://www.uscpf.org/news/2001/02/021601.htm),

the Taliban<4> (http://www.indiapolicy.org/lists/india_policy/2001/Feb/msg00069.html),

Vietnam<5> (http://www.thienlybuutoa.org/Misc/cream_of_the_diplomatic_crop.htm),

and Russia<6> (http://www.hrvc.net/news8-03/updates8-03.htm)

have attacked it for alleged bias, one-sided reporting, or failure to take security threats as a mitigating factor. Selection bias is the error of distorting a statistical analysis by pre- or post-selecting the samples. ... The Taliban (Pashtun and Persian: ØÇáÈÇä; students of Islam), also transliterated as Taleban, is an Islamist movement which ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, despite having diplomatic recognition from only three countries: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. ...

The majority of these criticisms to governments (or supporters of a government) pleading mitigation for admitted infringements of human rights, either because of special circumstances (such as security threats) or because other countries' records are worse.


snip

[Colorado Blue]

15. Selection Bias

Selection Bias (from the above referenced source)

It is widely accepted that there are a disproportionate number of AI reports on relatively more democratic and open countries. This is the major source of the charge of "selection bias", with critics pointing to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia. The term "selection bias" is however potentially misleading, since it derives from statistics, and AI's intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world's human rights abuses. Instead, its aim is (a) to document what it can, in order to (b) produce pressure for improvement. These two factors slew the number of reports towards more open and democratic countries, because information is more easily obtainable, and because their governments are more susceptible to public pressure.

A tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lessor violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late American Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights. United States Ambasadors to the United Nations, full title, Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations (also known as the... Daniel Patrick Pat Moynihan (March 16, 1927 - March 26, 2003) was a four-term U.S. Senator, ambassador, administration official, and academic. ... The United Nations, or UN, is an international organization established in 1945 and now made up of 191 states. ...


Examples

One example is the allegation of NGO Monitor, a publication of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which noted that between September 2000 until the beginning of 2003, when AI became active in the crisis in Darfur, AI issued 52 reports on the human rights abuses against Christians and animists in southern Sudan, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives through starvation and ethnic violence, as well as creating 1.2 million refugees (according to the World Health Organization), while AI concurrently issued 192 reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.<7> (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n12/NGOsAndSudan.htm) (These numbers refer in fact to the total number of documents including press releases, not to reports alone.) As the NGO Monitor report points out, after the start of the Darfur crisis, AI became much more involved in Sudan.

The total number of documents from the beginning of 1996 to March 2005 is 315 for Sudan and 398 for Israel. AI defenders respond by asserting that all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries should not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny. NGO Monitor is a project with the stated aim of monitoring non-governmental organizations operating in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. ...

[Englander]

21. NGO Monitor = ExtraTerrestials.

They are not of this planet.

They only critique NGOs that dare to expose the
illegality of the GOI; that critique does not take
into account the actual contents of the reports or the
views of NGOs such as HRW, Christian Aid, or AI.
NGO Monitor just makes-shit-up.

[Colorado Blue]

16. Ideological Bias and The Gulf War Babies

(from the referenced source)

Ideological bias

Amnesty International has been criticised for having an ideological bias both from the right wing and from the left...

Criticism from some parts of the left includes the view that the very idea of Human Rights is based on individualism, capitalism, colonialism, and classical liberalism (as meant by John Locke, J.S. Mill, et al.), and takes the view that cultural relativism means that the Human Rights are not in fact universal. Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. ...

Conservative commentators have alleged that AI's reporting reflects ideological bias toward a left-wing political viewpoint in opposition to the foreign policy of the United States. To support this they point to AI's treatment of the human rights implications of the U.S.-led war in Iraq...Supporters of AI have pointed out that AI was critical of Hussein's regime while Donald Rumsfeld was shaking the dictator by the hand, and that when the White House later released reports on the human rights record of Hussein, they depended almost entirely on AI documents that the US had ignored when Iraq was a US ally in the 1980s.

Manipulation of AI

Critics have also claimed that AI had a role propagating "disinformation" in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it charged that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines." It later transpired that this claim was a propaganda hoax, and AI's press release was used in the opening salvo of this propaganda campaign – President George Bush Snr. showed AI's press release on a primetime interview...

snip


Conclusion: AI, well-meaning as it is, is not free from bias or from error. It can be manipulated by high-power PR efforts. It tends to over-report human rights violations in open and democratic societies. It has CERTAINLY overreported the I/P conflict especially as vis a vis a real genocide with attendant atrocities in the Sudan.

I will be interested to read the AI report on human rights violations with the P.A.

If they do one.

[idontwantaname]

17. i have not read this report yet...

All AI documents on Palestinian Authority


Covering events from January - December 2004

The internal security situation deteriorated significantly in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during 2004. Power struggles and disagreements between and within the Palestinian Authority (PA), and political factions and groups resulted in increasingly frequent armed confrontations, attacks on individuals and property, and abductions. Palestinian armed groups and members of various security services also killed some 18 Palestinians who allegedly “collaborated” with the Israeli security services. Members of Palestinian armed groups continued to carry out attacks against Israelis both in the Occupied Territories and inside Israel, killing 109 Israelis. The PA frequently condemned Palestinian attacks against Israelis and Palestinians, but the security forces and judicial authorities were unable or unwilling to prevent and investigate such attacks and bring those responsible to justice

more at:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/pse-summary-eng


-------------------------

i know theres also complaints of AI's lack of criticism towards the treatment of homosexuals in the OT... but they do their best and dont work to cover up stories... i hope.

[Colorado Blue]

18. Thanks!!! nt

[Englander]

22. "D'oh!"

--"I will be interested to read the AI report on human rights violations with the P.A."

--"If they do one."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=92262&mesg_id=92265&page=

___________________________


--"AI, well-meaning as it is, is not free from bias or from error"

How are AI biased? Who are they biased against?

What errors (apart from the Kuwaiti incubator story) are AI guilty of?
Are there any errors in relation to I/P?

_________________________________


Also,how many paragraphs,from the "referenced source"
have you copied?:think:

And,the article is from Wikipedia;why not take it from Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[idontwantaname]

26. biased...

i guess if theyve received criticisms from the far right and left... it must mean there somewhere center. you cant please everybody because then youre just dishonest.

[Colorado Blue]

27. Mr. Englander, I think the articles spell it out pretty clearly,

especially the situation expressed by Senator Moynihan, in which democracies and other open societies are "busted" more frequently than others. The comparison between Israel and Sudan is apt, and backed up by the relative frequency with which Israel is busted at the UN, vs. Sudan and other violators who are far, far worse.

I don't know why you have a problem with the links I cited, I was in a hurry. As you say, they're in Wikipedia.

I copied as many paragraphs as the rules suggest, to avoid copyright violations. I'd copy the whole ARTICLE but it isn't a good idea, legally.

I have other links which I'll upload later but I want to make a point, which is, to be SKEPTICAL. That doesn't just relate to Amnesty but to everything lately. There is so much information out there and much of it is politically loaded. Much of it is influenced by P.R. agencies - as was the case with the Saddam baby thing.

I'm suggesting that people take care and do some cross-checking. The tendency in the "information age" is to swallow everything whole, get hysterical, and form a point of view, just like that.

That is dumb. It leaves people open to being manipulated.

I think Amnesty does good work. Lord knows, there are so many human rights violations it is good that SOMEBODY is investigating. But that doesn't make them INFALLIBLE.

Interestingly, on the I/P issue alone, it has been accused both of being too tough on Israel, and not tough enough.

There's another case of error cited in the Wikipedia article, and that involves the supposed victim of a rape camp, during the Balkan war. According to the person who complained about this incident, she was actually a highly connected political operative and AI was again, as in the Gulf War incident, led into playing a political role in a regional conflict.

I suggest, THEY might be being manipulated - and if that's the case, we're also in danger of being unduly swayed.

[Englander]

31. And does that SKEPTICISM...

apply to all charities,& NGOs,or only those that are
critical of the illegal activities of the GOI?

Does this mean that you will provide detailed examination
of all cited NGOs? Or only those that accuse the GOI of
war crimes?

_______________________________

On the subject of the original location of
an article,I think it's "good practice",if at
all possible,that the original location be used;
if an article is from the Guardian,or Wikipedia,
or wherever,then the provided link should be to
the Guardian, &tc. Apologies if I was too brusque or impolite.

____________________________________________


I'll ask this question again -

Have Amnesty International made any factual
errors in their reporting of the I/P conflict?

___________________________


In relation to the question of AI & bias,this is the list
of the countries who complained of bias;

Democratic Republic of the Congo;

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/cod-summary-eng

China;

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng

Viet Nam;

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/vnm-summary-eng

Russian Federation;

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/rus-summary-eng


And in addition, the US & Israel.

That's quite a rogue's gallery,& if you believe
that such things as "open & democratic societies"
exist in the era of the B*sh Doctrine,I've heard that
the word "gullible" is missing from the Oxford English
Dictionary;

http://www.askoxford.com/

:)

[drduffy]

19. However,

If you look at the actual numbers of children, civilians etc. killed by Israel vs the Palestinians.......The Israelis have killed many many more of the Palestinians than vice versa. To me, a child killed is a child killed. The rationalizations seem just like so much shit to me.

[Englander]

24. BBC - Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes'

"Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The rights group's report for 2004 says Israeli forces have killed some 700 Palestinians - including 150 children - mostly in unlawful circumstances.

The report lists "reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas... and excessive use of force".

>snip

Amnesty's accusations against the Israeli army include unlawful killings, torture, extensive and wanton destruction of property, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel.

Amnesty also says Israel has continued to use Palestinians as "human shields" during military operations, "forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives", despite an injunction by Israel's high court banning the practice."

More at;
BBC News

[tobeornottobe]

28. IT'S ALWAYS SAD

when a solid, trustworthy institution loses its bearings and joins in the partisan fracas that nowadays passes for political discourse. It's particularly sad when the institution is Amnesty International, which for more than 40 years has been a tough, single-minded defender of political prisoners around the world and a scourge of left- and right-wing dictators alike. True, Amnesty continues to keep track of the world's political prisoners, as it has always done, and its reports remain a vital source of human rights information. But lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world's dictators but for the United States.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501838.html

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Frankly, what's sad

Frankly, what's sad is when once trustworhty news organizations like the Washington Post lose their bearings and kiss Bush's ass rather than recognize him for the clear and present danger he and his regime are to American democracy.

The term Americna gulag is harsh, but well considered. Bush is a war criminal and should be trerated like one.

[Colorado Blue]

30. Bush is Big Trouble, no doubt. But the troubles began

back in the late 70's, and really escalated during the Reagan years. Bush I and his crew - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Baker, Rove - are really pulling the strings still, I'd bet. They really set the stage for our present-day woes, back in the '80's. I wonder if Dubya really has any input at all.

And nobody listened to Clinton. He and his administration were at least aware of the outside world and not in bed with the devil but lacked the time/juice to avert disaster. Plus he got caught being nasty, and lost so much political power.

Meanwhile, given our dependency upon oil, and the delicate relationship with the Sauds, even a greatly gifted statesman and cabinet would have been challenged to manage all our problems just in this one region. And Lord knows we don't have either.

The Sauds, meanwhile, probably should have been #1 on the list of People To See Re: War on Terror. But, Bush & Family are intertwined with them and the national economy is intertwined with their oil. And the Sauds are balanced between "the Great Satan" on the one hand, and the Wahabi on the other. They are playing a dangerous game of funding terrorists on the one hand while carefully maintaining plausible deniability on the other - partly in self-defense - against those same terrorists. I think what happens there, in coming years, is going be very interesting.

And lord knows Bush ain't swift. It's tragic that Gore was shafted, we ALL were shafted when that happened, because this is a ghastly situation and our current leadership is all wound up with the very thing we're supposed to be defending ourselves against.

And talk about HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - arming Saddam AND Iran, oh brother. That war killed maybe a million people?

Sorry if I've digressed! But all this stuff is CONNECTED.

[tobeornottobe]

34. What's sad is

when politics is more important than credibility and how human rights ends up suffering in the process.

[tobeornottobe]

45. Darfur

is the case in point.

[Englander]

32. "YeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaawwww!!!!!"

[applegrove]

33. Check out today's Darfur: Daily News for May 26, 2005 - Amnesty

report on women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3742377&mesg_id=3742377

[Colorado Blue]

35. Women take brunt of human rights abuse: Amnesty

I thought this was so important I copied it, even though this isn't really the proper forum, hope that's ok!!! Everybody should see it.

Thanks Applegrove.

"Women and girls faced "horrific" levels of abuse in 2004 worldwide, Amnesty International said in its annual human rights review, blaming widespread rape and violence on a mix of "indifference, apathy and impunity".

From honour killings carried out by the victims' families to sexual violence used as a weapon of war, abuse frequently went unpunished and survivors were often abandoned by their own communities, the London-based group said.

Amnesty said it had sought in the past year to argue that violence against women in conflict situations was "an extreme manifestation of the discrimination and abuse they face in peacetime", notably domestic violence and sexual abuse.

"When political tensions degenerate into outright conflict, all forms of violence increase, including rape and other forms of sexual violence against women."

The annual report, covering 131 countries, noted abuse across the world but highlighted several grave examples: in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), both armed groups and UN forces are guilty of rape; in Turkey, family abuse of women is widespread; in Darfur, Sudan, gang rape is systemic; and in eastern Europe, economic need fuels the trafficking of women.

In Darfur, where a local rebellion sparked a brutal government backlash, Khartoum-backed militias have staged mass rapes, including of schoolgirls, and "frequently abducted" local women into sexual slavery, Amnesty said.

Tens of thousands of women and girls were also subject to rape and sexual slavery in the DRC, and as in Darfur, victims were often then abandoned by their husbands and families, "condemning them and their children to extreme poverty".

All parties in the ongoing conflicts in the eastern DRC have committed the abuses against women, including military and police officers, and United Nations peacekeepers charged with the protection of civilians.

The two African cases were "not exceptional", Amnesty warned.

Latin America had the highest risk of all types of sexual victimisation, according to UN report findings cited by Amnesty.

In Colombia, the group said, security forces, left-wing rebels and paramilitaries targeted women and girls to "sow terror, wreak revenge on adversaries and accumulate 'trophies of war'."

In Turkey, between one-third and one-half of all women are estimated to be victims of physical violence by their families - raped, beaten, murdered or forced to commit suicide - while the country sorely lacked shelters and legal protection for victims.

Amnesty noted some progress in Ankara, with legal reforms that recognised marital rape as a crime and did away with the possibility that a rapist's prison sentence could be reduced or annulled if he agreed to marry his victim. Still, authorities largely failed to investigate most women's complaints of abuse.

Serbia and Montenegro "remained a source, transit and destination country" for women and girls who were trafficked to the West into forced prostitution, while the problem existed throughout the poorer countries of Eastern Europe.

"With clients including international police and troops, the women and girls are too afraid to escape," Amnesty said."

[Coastie for Truth]

41. While I am a financial supporter of AI (and the ACLU)

I am a more dirty fingernails and calloused knuckles member of another NGO that provides humanitarian works --- and I invited I/P DUers who share my interest and committment to join me for lunch.--
1. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3661784&mesg_id=3661784
2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=91625&mesg_id=91793

Well one DUer took me up on it, and we had a great San Francisco lunch. After that we attended a seminar that sorta kinda ties into this thread.

Bottom line. Question - Would it be completely unreasonable for the Islamic Members of the "International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent" to accept the "Third Additional Protocol" to the 1863 Geneva Convention (establishing the Red Cross - and later the Red Crescent). This would "officially" accept the Red Shield of David as the recognized symbol of the Israeli affiliate of the ICRC, and would vote the Israeli affiliate into the "International Federation (of the Red Cross and Red Crescent) General Assembly" as full voting member - and not just as a "back of the bus" observer.

Just a little show of good faith and a thank you for Sri Lanka.

And don't give me any legalistic or public policy answers - they don't do anybody any good when they're working their butt off after a hurricane or earthquake or flood, trying to get food and shelter to the "newly homeless" victimes and connect repeaters to transmitter towers and move in potable water.

Saving a life of somebody who doesn't look like you or who doesn't speak your language is a little bit too important for political niceties.

Why can't the Islamic Red Crescent Societies just show a little friggin bit of good faith and good will on this on this one - let's call it returning the good will of a winter in Sri Lanka.