BBC: The Bilin Popular Committee meets on Wednesday night to plan the next step in a campaign that turned this Palestinian farming community into a symbol of unarmed resistance against the Israeli occupation.
Thousands of Palestinian, Israeli and foreign activists have joined villagers on weekly protest marches to the controversial barrier built by Israel in the West Bank, which cuts Bilin from most of its agricultural land.
Abu Nizar (centre) and others danced in the street after prayers
|
The Israeli government says the barrier is a security measure to stop suicide bombers, but critics say the structure is a calculated effort to annex occupied land.
On Tuesday the village scored a notable victory in the second part of its campaign – fighting the barrier’s route through the Israeli courts.
The Supreme Court ordered the government to draw new boundaries near Bilin because the current route was “highly prejudicial” to the villagers and not justifiable on security grounds…
[Now if they can do that with the rest of the wall, it would be great!]
THis is for that idiot 🙂 who kept using HRW as his/her source! You are truely an idiot who needs to get a life.
“During last year’s conflict with Hizbullah, Human Rights Watch led the condemnation and political campaign against Israel, repeatedly using terms such as “indiscriminate attacks” and “war crimes,” based on allegations that were unverifiable or false, and largely absolving Hizbullah.
This NGO superpower issued more statements and reports than any other group. One year later, HRW and Ken Roth, who heads this powerful organization, are still trying to answer critics, and to this end, they have published a 128-page report claiming to discover the details of the conflict. While it is heavily padded and repetitious – few people are apparently expected to read more than the summary and recommendations – the report tacitly acknowledges that the widely publicized claims made by HRW officials, including Roth, were wrong.
How did HRW make such fundamental errors during the war? Why were they so quick to condemn Israel without knowing the facts? Why did officials ignore Hizbullah attacks and obvious violations of the moral principles HRW claims to promote? And which officials are responsible for HRW’s role in the demonization of Israel?
HRW’S REPORT, entitled “Civilians under Assault: Hezbollah’s Rocket Attacks on Israel in the 2006 War” contrasts sharply with the political bombardment during the war. The major weapon at that time was a 49-page glossy booklet entitled “Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in Lebanon,” including an apparently staged cover photo with numbered coffins, and accompanied by a public relations campaign.
This and other publications simply repeated the claims of “eyewitnesses” probably linked to Hizbullah, who declared that no rockets were being fired from any area in Lebanon that was hit by Israeli counterattacks.
Similarly, in columns and interviews, HRW “Emergencies Director” Peter Bouckaert condemned Israel’s explanation of its attacks following Hizbullah missile attacks as “a convenient excuse.”
Now Bouckaert’s words are forgotten as the “excuse” has been verified by HRW’s “expert researchers.”
And while the role of Syria and Iran in supplying Hizbullah with thousands of rockets escaped HRW officials last year, they have now discovered this Middle Eastern fact of life. Better late than never, but the damage from HRW’s assault cannot be undone.
For anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the events, this publication is banal, including the belated acknowledgement that Hizbullah “repeatedly bombarded cities, towns and villages without any apparent effort to distinguish between civilians and military objectives.” As a result, “Hizbullah… violated fundamental provisions against deliberate and indiscriminate attacks against civilians.”
Seventy pages of this report (most of the “meat”) describe Hizbullah’s arsenal, and the impact of the attacks against Haifa, Acre, Safed and numerous other parts of Northern Israel. The report also includes the bellicose statements made by Hassan Nasrallah and other officials, mentioning 89 “war time communiqués” declaring the goal of killing Israelis.
Too bad that during the war, HRW researchers were apparently too busy with their anti-Israel campaigning to notice them.
AS IN most HRW publications, the report includes a section with pseudo-legal jargon making the obvious case that Hizbullah (while never referred to as a terrorist group) is bound by the rules of war.
This is a welcome change from HRW’s previous and morally absurd position, which exempted Palestinian terrorists and “non-state actors.” However, the claim that the laws of war do not include discussions of aggression is nonsensical and insulting to anyone with common sense or knowledge of the UN Charter. But in this way, Roth and HRW were able avoid assigning moral responsibility to Hizbullah for this war, or recognizing Israel’s “humanitarian right” to self-defense.
While HRW, and Ken Roth in particular, are used to making the accusations, issuing reports, determining international law according to their political preferences and calling for “independent investigations,” the evidence from these reports highlights the need to investigate HRW. With an annual budget of over $40 million, a disproportionate part of which is spent targeting Israel, the damage from its highly biased approach and lack of credibility is too serious to ignore.
HRW HAS played a major role in the exploitation of human rights norms in the pursuit of partisan and personal agendas, including the demonization of Israel. The anti-Israel campaign and false allegations during last year’s war followed HRW’s standard pattern that included participation in the NGO Forum at the 2001 Durban conference, which declared Israel to be an “apartheid state,” the 2004 “Razing Rafah” publication, and accusations of “war crimes” in Jenin.
“Reports” that attempt to minimize criticism resulting from earlier anti-Israel activities are also part of the standard operating procedure – as seen in HRW’s belated one-time publication on Palestinian suicide bombings. These also need to be examined by an independent commission.
When Ken Roth speaks at the Hebrew University on September 6 (under the presumptuous title: “The 2006 Israel-Hizbullah War: The Real Reason Civilians Died”), he should also be confronted with HRW’s biases and lack of credibility.
The damage resulting from the political attacks on Israel, and from the continued exploitation of human rights, is too great to be ignored.”
have you checked out this blog:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/
THE FATTY’S ARTICLE:
“During last year’s conflict with Hizbullah, Human Rights Watch led the condemnation and political campaign against Israel, repeatedly using terms such as “indiscriminate attacks†and “war crimes,†based on allegations that were unverifiable or false, and largely absolving Hizbullah.
ME:
Absolving Hizbullah? How, where and how did it absolve Hezbollah? Is he saying that HRW did not issue condemnations of Hezbollah?? What is he talking about? How does it explain these, just as examples:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/05/lebano14336.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/22/lebano14262.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/05/lebano13921.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/26/syria13847.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/27/iran13842.htm
Is this called absolving Hezbollah? Id love to see what condemning Hezbollah would be like!!
______________
THE FATTYS ARTICLE:
This NGO superpower issued more statements and reports than any other group. One year later, HRW and Ken Roth, who heads this powerful organization, are still trying to answer critics, and to this end, they have published a 128-page report claiming to discover the details of the conflict. While it is heavily padded and repetitious – few people are apparently expected to read more than the summary and recommendations – the report tacitly acknowledges that the widely publicized claims made by HRW officials, including Roth, were wrong.
ME:
Where does it “tacitly acknowledges†that HRW had been wrong? Where in the report does it say that? If its true, why doesn’t the author quote the report to show us where this happens. In fact, it seems the author is lying. Here is a report just put out right after the Hezbollah one:
“Israel’s indiscriminate airstrikes, not Hezbollah’s shielding as claimed by Israeli officials, caused most of the approximately 900 civilian deaths in Lebanon during the July-August 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah,†http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/isrlpa16781.htm
AND HERE IS THE METHODOLGY
“his report builds on Human Rights Watch’s August 2006 report, Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon. It represents the most comprehensive study of civilian deaths in Lebanon to date, based on extensive on-the-ground research. During the course of five months of continuous research in Lebanon and Israel, Human Rights Watch investigated the deaths of more than 561 persons during Israeli air and groundstrikes and collected additional summary information about an additional 548 deaths, thus accounting for a total number of 1,109 deaths (civilians and combatants) from the 34-day conflict. Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 355 victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, journalists, military experts, and government agencies. We visited more than fifty villages and conducted on-site inspections. Human Rights Watch also conducted research in Israel, inspecting the IDF’s use of weapons and discussing the conduct of forces with IDF officials.â€
______________
THE FATTYS ARTICLE:
HRW’S REPORT, entitled “Civilians under Assault: Hezbollah’s Rocket Attacks on Israel in the 2006 War†contrasts sharply with the political bombardment during the war. The major weapon at that time was a 49-page glossy booklet entitled “Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in Lebanon,†including an apparently staged cover photo with numbered coffins, and accompanied by a public relations campaign.
This and other publications simply repeated the claims of “eyewitnesses†probably linked to Hizbullah, who declared that no rockets were being fired from any area in Lebanon that was hit by Israeli counterattacks.
ME:
“Probably linked†and “apparently staged�??!! Where is his evidence for these claims? Does he have any? Does he cite any? NO!!
WOW, and yet ANOTHER another blatant lie. HRW certainly NEVER said that Hezbollah NEVER fired from civilian areas. In fact, if you read the report:
http://hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/3.htm#_Toc175028481
You see, that they show a few instances that this did happen, and HRW does note this in the report. But what was the overall, vast majority of the time? It says it right here:
“With these few exceptions, Human Rights Watch found that Hezbollah stored its rockets in bunkers and facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys; ordered its fighters and civilian officials away from populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started; and fired its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages. In the vast majority of airstrikes resulting in civilian deaths investigated by Human Rights Watch, there was no Hezbollah military presence or activity to justify the attack. “
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/isrlpa16781.htm
_____________
THE FATTYS ARTICLE:
Similarly, in columns and interviews, HRW “Emergencies Director†Peter Bouckaert condemned Israel’s explanation of its attacks following Hizbullah missile attacks as “a convenient excuse.â€
Now Bouckaert’s words are forgotten as the “excuse†has been verified by HRW’s “expert researchers.â€
ME
Again, it appears that this guy didn’t even read the report just put out, let alone the report he is citing!! Why doesn’t he actually quote from the report? Why doesn’t he provide us with any evidence for this “verification of the excuse� He says its in the report. Where is it?
And why does this 250 page report: http://hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/lebanon0907web.pdf
Directly contradict that Hezbollah caused all of the civilian casualties in Lebanon from shielding. Bascially, what the hell is this guy reading??!!
THE FATTYS ARTICLE:
“And while the role of Syria and Iran in supplying Hizbullah with thousands of rockets escaped HRW officials last year,â€
ME:
Another blatant lie. Here is what HRW wrote to Ahmadinejad last summer, as well as to Bashar al Asad:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/26/syria13847.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/27/iran13842.htm
THE FATTYS ARTICLE:
a disproportionate part of which is spent targeting Israel, the damage from its highly biased approach and lack of credibility is too serious to ignore.
ME:
“Disproportionate� Compared to whom? Why don’t we count up the number of reports on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan last year and compare to the number on Israel and see if tere is “disproportionate†and “bias� Where exactly is thus guys’s evidence for these claims? What is he citing? Where are the details? WHAT IS HIS EVIDENCE??!!
IN SUMMARY:
YET AGAIN, WE SEE HOW THE BLATANT LIES OF ARASH AND THOSE HE SUPPORTS, ARE EXPOSED. WHY DOESN’T THIS MAN CITE ANY EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS? Are his statements backed up by any facts? Does he even attempt to support his claims? Are his declarations of HRW even accurate?
Arash, just stick to trying to find us evidence of Hezbollah butchering to death 1000’s of Christians civilians. That should keep you busy enough. And get on a treadmill.
bro, u seemed obesessed with this guy…are u? and out of curiosity what is this guy’s, whom u refer to as fatty, blog site?
The issue, again, isnt him. Its about the claims he makes. Its about what he says. Its about the fact that ZIonists like him fabricate and lie, and most of the time dont even present evidence to abck up their claims. The personal attacks are just icing on the cake 😉
His blog is barely legible. Literally.
lol…..can u give me the blog url?
Since he doesnt allow people to post freely on his blog to directly refute what he says (which ove been doing for a few months now) I dont really wanna give him any hits. You can email pouya and he’ll gladly give you his web site, I imagine.
What is particularly telling about him is that whenever i directly respond to anything he says, and directly refute it with evidence, he magically dissapears. I would love to debate him, but he refuses, as his lies were exposed last time.
check this link, for more with confident