What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
306 Comments
- fairley7, on 11/04/2009, -23/+108It's interesting that highly respected observers like Goldstone and Jimmy Carter suddenly stop being respected and become "highly biased" if they dare criticize Israel.
- Gev1982, on 11/04/2009, -36/+120This is BS. This report was led by an internationally recognized figure--the only thing being distorted here is the truth. Why do we go out of our way to aid the Israelis when they were obviously in the wrong? Not to say that the Palestinians are saints, but the response by the Israeli military was most definitely disproportionate. I don't want my tax dollars going overseas to promote an Israel that won't be held accountable for its actions.
- ripple01, on 11/04/2009, -25/+107"Israel has criticized the report as unbalanced and says the 47-nation Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, which commissioned the report, is biased against the Jewish state."
So rather than try and provide specific criticisms against the report to debunk it, they just whine that it is unfair.
Stay classy, Israel. - Grandest, on 11/04/2009, -16/+82It's disgusting to see how they have our representatives in their pocket.
I elected you to serve my interests not to be the lap dog of Israel, or any other foreign nation. - dalittle, on 11/04/2009, -17/+56Wow, they must be completely ignoring all the facts and pictures of Gaza and israel's continued expanded occupation of the west bank to come to that conclusion. Israel's behavior is definitely apartheid. Based on this they must stop coming to the US looking for a handout.
- chumprock, on 11/04/2009, -22/+49I guess they will always be persecuted in their eyes...
Must be so hard being the chosen ones. /s - lolerskate, on 11/04/2009, -17/+42When AIPAC says down on your knees and suck, the US get down on it knees and sucks.
- InetRoadkill, on 11/04/2009, -14/+38AIPAC is flexing its muscle in congress again.
Is anyone really surprised that the US would reflexively reject any suggestion of war crimes or human rights violations by Israel by playing the anti-semite card? - askantik, on 11/04/2009, -14/+37Wtf, the entire US House agrees on it being biased? No, let me quote from an email I got from Congressman Kucinich this morning:
"Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt. Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist."
"Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian."
"The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility of all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the "Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right: resolution."
"Because if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read, concerning events it has totally ignored, about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution."
"How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation?"
"How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to human security of jobs, education and health care?".
"We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of that principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim." - ahoy, on 11/04/2009, -12/+30anyone who watched that attack unfold knows this is *****.
Israeli losses: 13
Palestinian losses: 1,400
The Palestinian makeshift rockets were merely an excuse for Israel to launch an all out premeditated attack on Gaza... which contributed nothing to Israeli security, and killed hundreds of innocent women and children.
for the love of god try peace.
ps - to my Jewish friends
If you're thinking about taking advantage of your free birthright trip, consider the real costs: illegal settlements on Palestinian land and criminal shortages of public utilities on the Palestinian side. - Gev1982, on 11/04/2009, -10/+28@foopirata
Here is the problem. Look at the statistics and see how many Israelis have been injured/killed via unguided Rockets and missiles versus Palestinians. I understand that two wrongs don't make a right, but your response to my post displays a lack of understanding of the situation. The figure leading this investigation was Richard Goldstone--a man that should be able to recognize injustice due to his work in South Africa, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Kosovo! People like you make me sick. Don't apologize for the transgressions of the Jewish state when you aren't willing to open your eyes to the reality of the situation that the Palestinians live in. - bdbr, on 11/04/2009, -1/+18They can't BOTH be in the wrong?
- raisputin3, on 11/04/2009, -14/+31In the eyes of the USA, Israel can do no wrong...
Won't sign the NPT, No problem!
Has undeclared Nuclear Weapons, No Problem!
Murders Palestinians at their whim, No Problem!
Cuts off Water to Palestinians, No Problem!
Steals land at every available opportunity from Palestinians, No Problem!
Demolishes houses of Palestinians, No Problem!
Israel is an abomination of a state and the United States should cut off all aid to it, and recommend a trade embargo. ***** Israel.
Don't like what I said, too bad. - KyotoWolf, on 11/04/2009, -9/+25Funny that they'd quote Steny Hoyer, a staunch protector of Israel no matter what it does.
- jmbrill81, on 11/04/2009, -17/+30The UN Human Rights Council is a joke. Look at its membership:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/mem ...
The overwhelming majority of these countries are opaque societies that have no regard for human rights. China is on there! China, who has millions of political prisoners! Just read the list of countries on this commission and consider whether it deserves an ounce of credibility. - Frostek, on 11/04/2009, -16/+29It's clear to me that in 100 years there will likely be no Palestine. Israel will have played the long game and gradually squeezed them out of existence, or at least beyond the point where they can exist as a country.
Which is why people need to oppose Israel's actions today, and not at some point in the future.
And stop giving them so much ***** money!
All that bitching about NASA spending $79 million on the recent Moon water test, and very little talk about the $7 million per day they're paying out to another country in military "aid". - KyotoWolf, on 11/04/2009, -12/+24Where I'm from (the UK) he's respected for ending the US Embassy siege (albeit a day after he left office) and for his acts to protect human rights since his presidency.
- stonebear, on 11/04/2009, -7/+19Antizionism is not the same thing as antisemitism. Zionist Jews typically hide behind their Judaism, which has not actually represented zionism for thousands of years.
- Isenborg, on 11/04/2009, -15/+26Wow. The surprise would be a report from the UN that WASN'T BIASED against the US and Israel.
- Phaedryn, on 11/04/2009, -5/+16I will never understand this fascination with 'proportionate' response. That is the worst, possible, response to aggression possible. You would do much better to just roll over and play dead than hobble yourself by responding in 'proportion' only. If you have the means, you absolutely base your response on your goal, not your opponents means.
- foopirata, on 11/04/2009, -5/+16The "chosen by God" thing is quite misunderstood. In Judaism, it stands for "chosen to have more duties", and not "chosen to be better" as some anti-something-or-another people so much want to imply.
- ian7208, on 11/04/2009, -5/+15War is disproportionate. Israel is a democracy, and was responding to another country (I will call Gaza a country) shooting rockets at them. What would the US do if Tijuana was shooting rockets at San Diego? Uh, I think everyone knows what we'd do.
Have you looked at the membership of the UN Human Rights Council? It's literally a joke... Angola, China, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. In past years the US, UK, France and Netherlands have walked out of hearings. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_ ...
I think concerns about the report focus on this: Professor Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, called the resolution "deeply one-sided and flawed", arguing that the resolution begins by assuming what the inquiry it mandated was supposedly meant to determine. Cotler further noted that Goldstone himself revealed that he had initially refused his own appointment for this very reason. He quoted Goldstone saying: "More than hesitate, I initially refused to become involved in any way [with the inquiry], on the basis of what seemed to me to be a biased, uneven-handed resolution of the UN Human Rights Council".
There probably were war crimes on both sides, and they should be investigated and prosecuted, but the UN Human Rights Council has a strongly documented history of bias, which taints the entire report. - Meekers, on 11/04/2009, -12/+22Jimmy Carter supported Pol Pot...he has done some decent things after his presidency but he has always been a joke, especially in situations like this.
- stonebear, on 11/04/2009, -3/+13Not all American Jews are zionists. Many are as critical of Israel's activities as anyone.
- Trublmakr, on 11/04/2009, -8/+18Perhaps Israel should have cooperated with the UN investigation and provided their own accounts,.. but they didn't. And then complain it's one-sided? Well played.
- Gev1982, on 11/04/2009, -9/+18Most of the developed world has had sympathy for the Jews. Whenever someone questions the actions of your state, they are branded as "Anti-Semitic" and "biased". The Palestinian people are for the most part impoverished, which is not helped by the fact that Israel won't allow supplies into their land. When poor, desperate people run out of options, unfortunately, some of them fight. If Israel would try to address the root of this conflict there might be some change, but until then, I will continue to call you out as being a jaded *****. Enjoy the health care that the American people subsidize in your warmongering welfare state.
- ahoy, on 11/04/2009, -7/+15don't take someone's land, and they wont shoot rockets, how is that hard to figure out?
also, there's the matter of proportionality of the attacks that I was alluding to, and etc etc etc.
When was the last time Israel tried peace in exchange for their own security? And I mean put a serious offer on the table? - inactive, on 11/04/2009, -1/+9Also if you ask many of the settlers, most will claim ties to the land more than the state of Israel and many actually are receptive to the idea of becoming Palestinians as long as either governments leave them alone.
- raisputin3, on 11/04/2009, -3/+11Go Kucinich!!!!!! (The only democrat I would have voted for in the last Presidential Election :) )...No, I didn't vote for McCain or Obama
- dalittle, on 11/04/2009, -2/+10care to explain the israeli military t-shirt with the bulls eye on a pregnant Palestinian Woman and the slogan 2 for 1 kill? The mindset of israeli supporters is part of the problem. There is no justification for what is happening in Palestine by the israelis.
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -2/+10tootim, personally I think the settler issue should be the LAST thing to debate on the table. I find it ironic how the same people who complain about a few thousand Israeli settlers think 10 million Mexicans have a right to cross over the US border and take up residence here and get on government education for their kids and free ER room visits.
Most of the Israeli settlers are living out in the middle of nowhere in isolated outposts, Palestinians would do more good to try and work out a peace plan and either make them Palestinian citizens or work out the question to evict them later down the road. - howardstern1, on 11/04/2009, -2/+10Nobody said anything about jews. We are taking about Israelis and mainly Zionists. But of course Zionists always scream anti-semitism when commenting on AIPAC.
- tgc1, on 11/04/2009, -9/+17Israel was later quoted as saying "Wahhhh... wahhhhh... boooohoooo.... Give us special treatment."
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -6/+14The Russian response to Georgia's fight with N. Ossetia was disproportionate but the third internationalists said they were in the right.
Also where was the outrage when Lebanon artillery shelled Palestinian neighborhoods to destroy Al-Queda terrorists?
It's okay for Arabs to kill other Arabs but when the Israelis do it they are war criminals. - Dalhectar, on 11/04/2009, -2/+10This is about accusations of war crimes, not religious doctrine.
Even if it was about religious doctrine, people should be free to post stories of their interest. - Idonteven, on 11/04/2009, -5/+12I suggest we petition to have North Korea on the UN Human Rights Council to make it official.
- tootim, on 11/04/2009, -4/+11pintomp3, you are really THAT incapable of understanding his point? I guess you are.
- ramilehti, on 11/04/2009, -6/+13The Goldstone report is a well researched, well annotated report that tells the truth.
It chronicles war crimes on BOTH sides.
It is not biased. No matter what the Israeli government or the US government says. - Trublmakr, on 11/04/2009, -4/+11Actually, 13 Israeli deaths isn't quite accurate - some of those 13 were due to friendly fire.
- bluto36, on 11/04/2009, -4/+11@pin
no but if you shoot at me from your house or car and your family is in the house or car when i return fire tuff tooties. your family's death is on you buddy not me. - Bamboolemur, on 11/04/2009, -8/+15"it doesn't automagically turn everything in its pages into golden truth. "
Nor does it turn into a falsehood either. So how would you suggest we determine the crimes of the isrealis and palestinians, if not by an independent investigation?
Or do you believe that Israel is not capable of doing anything wrong? - tootim, on 11/04/2009, -2/+8And Egypt and Jordan are allies of Israels so... yeah. *looks around awkwardly*
But yes, the UN has all but utterly ignored the actions of the Palestinians. How many sanctions or resolutions have they ever filed against them? None. They can do no wrong. - jmbrill81, on 11/04/2009, -4/+10How can you "prefer Hamas?" These are fundamental religious terrorists. They hate everyone who isn't exactly like them. They hate Palestinians who support Fatah. Do you have no perception of reality?
- tootim, on 11/04/2009, -6/+12Oh please fasda, are we going down this road again? How can somebody be occupying Gaza when they aren't even physically there?
The UN has been trying to undo its 'mistake of 48' for years now. Somehow it must bow to international pressure, no matter how valid the opinions behind such pressure actually is.
Israel has its hands full with settlers, I don't think it needs to truck anymore in. Did you know that the Israeli government often goes into these people's homes and evicts them in the middle of the night? They've also bloodied a great deal of Jewish faces trying to remove anybody living in heavily contested areas.
I don't hear any outcry of rage there though. Hmmm. I guess you've never heard of Amona?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amona - foopirata, on 11/04/2009, -2/+8@speedsteamboat: if it quacks like a duck, it must be a chicken, obviously.
"and the addition of biased op-ed pieces" - oh, cool, let's embark on a discussion of why these are biased op-ed pieces. Or no, better, let's just postulate they are because you say so!
Try again, beg more. - tootim, on 11/04/2009, -3/+9Gev, I'll put it this way. I have a few Palestinian friends (and I guess more Israeli ones to be honest) and one recently told me that Hamas is a way for those poor people to feel as though they have an army and somehow a legitimate chance at whatever it is they want.
The sad thing is, this army does them no good. All it can do is go and hit a hornet's nest with a stick. Nobody is saying Palestinians are stupid, anything but. They know Israel has only 1 choice in how to react to threats of such a constant nature and they provoke this reaction to further their cause.
Each dead Palestinian is worth far more to Hamas than alive. Think about that. - Countess666, on 11/04/2009, -3/+9condemning Israel's actions is NOT the same as 'sticking up' for hamas. BOTH are acting like idiots and playing with human lives. the only difference is that hamas is usually smarter about what its doing.
Israel is acting like a brutal oppressor at times, and in so doing is doing precisely what hamas wants.
hamas needs Israel and their brutality as a enemy in order to keep the support of the people.
but despite Israel ill advices actions these past decades, luckily the gaza people are wizening up to hamas and voices of decent can be heard... when not put down by hamas.
those voices could be speaking much much more loudly if Israel would stop killing a few thousand Gaza civilians ever time a few building get damaged by those plastic rockets hamas calls weapons.
Israel should take a good hard long look at north Ireland's history if they ever want too achieve peace. - tootim, on 11/04/2009, -3/+8So eloquently put! Wouldn't a simple "Death to Israel" suffice?
- jmbrill81, on 11/04/2009, -3/+8Gladstone was commissioned to investigate by resolution S-9/1 of the UNHRC which states:
"Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Arab and African Groups), Pakistan (on
behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference): draft resolution
S-9/1.
The grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip...
Strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which has resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people and systematic destruction of Palestinian infrastructure..."
It goes on and on, but I'll let you read it:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/spe ...
Gladstone changed the terms on his own, but the resolution is what Israel rejected.
SpeedSteam, you should actually learn how U.N. councils work. The special rapporteur to the HRC for the Palestinian territories is Richard Falk, who has said that his job entails:
"...evaluating whether the conditions of occupation are such as to give the Palestinians some kind of right of resistance. And if they have that right, then what are the limits to that right?" and "The other issue at stake in this current inquiry is to evaluate how Israel as the occupying power is carrying out its responsibility to protect the society that is subject to its control."
He has also compared Israel to the Nazis and said Bush was complicit in 9/11 an that we should "trust Khomeni." He is not credible and has a definite bias in both his attitude and how he views his job. - Phaedryn, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7Let me expand a bit, since some seem to want to take the concept to absurd extremes.
The idea the a response can only use a level of force proportionate to the original act is wrong. The response to be designed to achieve the desired goal, and not limited to anything less than that. To do otherwise doesn't make sense from any logical standpoint.
You do not end aggression by limiting your response to it, you only prolong it.
To use the 'punch in the face' analogy, the response should be 'what ever prevents getting punched in the face again', not simply 'sitting there exchanging blows'.
A government, especially, has a responsibility to it's citizens to ensure such attacks stop, not merely to retaliate 'in kind'. In fact, 'retaliation in kind' could be argued to be MORE immoral, as that is simply revenge, and not justifiable. -
Show 51 - 100 of 309 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is