Comment by defaultprimate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by defaultprimate | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're right that the border states may not be theoretic ethno states but they are confessionalist states. Palestinian refuges have less political representation and rights on these border states than Israel as well. They're literally barred from naturalization in Syria and Lebanon.

Israel's actions according to AI aren't actions based in the context of reality. That's the problem. The characterization of apartheid is absurd. Nearby nations treat Palestinians as a lesser class of human. Israel doesn't at all. If the driving concern of the report was the well being of Palestinians, there are numerous facts they could have addressed in the region that wouldn't have required manufactured falsehoods, contextual manipulation, or ignoring terrorism.

As time goes on, more and more point by point callouts of the blatant falsehoods proclaimed throughout the report will occur, but the NGO-Monitor one is a great place to start.

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-apartheid-analys...

It's not just Amnesty calling out apartheid Israel: Amnesty's report came out after Israeli human rights advocacy organizations published their reports:

1. 18 months after Yesh Din's "The Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion,"

2. A year after B'tselem's "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid."

3. Eight months after Human Rights Watch published "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution."

4. Five years after experts commissioned by the UN's Economic and Social Commission of West Asia had authored "Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid"

We can even count Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu calling out Israeli apartheid.

None of these criticisms were related to Judaism.

Are they all antisemitic?

Do you have any sources that attempt to be unbiased rather than unabashedly pro Israel?

I can’t take this seriously otherwise.

Do you have any that attempt to be unbiased, or hell, objective, that accuse Israel of being apartheid? I don't even care if they're biased if they're objective. The NGO monitor is point by point, sourced, objective rebuttals. If that's not good enough for you, that's a personal problem with objectivity that you can sort out yourself.

Amnesty International is neither unbiased nor objective. They've long been staunchly anti Israel with no objective basis. It shouldn't be a surprise that it's pro Israel sources providing objectively sourced rebuttals to the report. AI can be anti Israel all they want if their accusations stand up to even the most basic scrutiny or historical fact, but they don't. They're laughably and blatantly manipulative, deceitful, lies by omission, or just plain lies. There's nothing wrong with bias if you utilize verifiable facts in your arguments. Do you dismiss the arguments and points of black BLM supporters because you don't take black unabashedly pro black people seriously?

> The NGO monitor is point by point, sourced, objective rebuttals.

Sourced, objective rebuttals you say. Let’s take a look at their issues under “methodology”:

“Amnesty’s methodology section is opaque and inconsistent with internationally recognized fact-finding standards.” [0]

The source in that passage leads to a book

* Best Practices for Human Rights and Humanitarian NGO Fact-Finding (Nijhoff Law Specials) by Gerald M. Steinberg, Anne Herzberg, Jordan Berman (2012) Paperback*

Who is the lead author, Gerald Steinberg? It would appear to be the president of NGO monitor. (Ann herzberg is also on their staff) [1]

Unfortunately I don’t have the ability to exhaustively research all of their sources, but this is hardly credible.

[0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Practices-Humanitarian-Fact-Finding...

[1] https://www.ngo-monitor.org/about/staff/

What objections do you have to the evidence presented and logic used?

Again I'll ask, do you dismiss black BLM supporters on the basis that because they're unabashedly pro-black, they can't present objective, unbiased evidence and arguments for their support?

You held them up because they “source” their piece and we’re “objective”.

Sourcing yourself is not sourcing. Citing yourself is not objective.

Your standards for unbiased and objective are seriously questionable:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-undisguised-agenda/

Quick Google searches without vetting the assertions made by an author are not good practice

She regularly lies by omission, and also leads the New Israel Fund, one of Adalah's chief financial supporters.

https://www.camera.org/article/yehudit-karp-erases-history-o...

Adalah also defends known Hamas leadership and has absurd amounts of documentation regarding its true, more nefarious purposes. That's why it's met with suspicion and not seen as a champion of civil rights.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-court-nixes-rec...

https://israelbehindthenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/I...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com