Amnesty International.............Human rights....

[Anti-Consumer]

Amnesty International accuse Iran over Human Rights violations..One more time this NGO shows its dark face,Amnesty was the one supported Israelis "rights" to settlements in west bank,the one who coincides Hamas with the zionist regime over war crimes and many more..Before starting a conversation about what exactly is "human rights",All westerns must consider first the deads of their wars-nowadays at least,the thousands of immigrants who after their wars lost their lives trying to pass in the fortress Europe,Minaret Banning,Hijab Banning,the starving in the third world as consequence of the global capitalism overexploitation of Africa and South America,the banning of critisism against zionist state as anti-semitism,the military coups and fake revolutions organized or fostered by the west to overthrow resistance or simply antiamerican regimes(Chile,Honduras,Venezuela,Iran,Moldova,Ukraine,and many many more...)The fact that all these childish NGO's do unilateral critisism on Sudan,Iran,China and much less in Saudia,Egypt and other US friendly countries..But what is this new religion suddenly appeared or not exactly new..but a real backward to 1789 days?a post modern phenomenon?a superficial uprising in societies with lack of values so they make the human life political itself?After the Bourgeois revolutions the new rich class of slave traders,merchants,moneylenders and colonialist slayers invented human rights to protect themselves from the opressed,they also adopted the abstract notion of progress(which in reality is only development and infrastractures and not spiritual evolution of the human beeings and societies)that history goes forward and the western establishment is the destiny of humanity,but in reality western world had never civilization and human rights was the best trick that keeps alive the bubble gum we call west(not in reversed huntigtons terms of course..but in our difference),a way to hide its savaged nature from the very begining,Europe before middle ages was a place of savaged tribes destroying everything in their passage they formed their first societies under catholic establishment,their inner violent and savaged charachter revealed in the destruction of any gnosis,when they received the arabic,persian and ancient greek gnosis from Islamic Civilization they hurried up to make arts and the violence became external(crusades,colonialism,arab and jewish expulsions) and very very internal,they started to built clinics where they made experiments to the mental ill people and exclude the different from their societies-in opposition with the other civilizations who were naturally tolerant,then they started to destroy all of their old values and make new from zero,they do it every time,Nazism was just a small reveal of western insticts awake..Human rights is their subjective reality for these ages,a substitute of things natural to other civilizations(friendship,love,hospitality-western has only institutions no real feelings)a system contrary to the human nature..a new Fascism but much worse,the best way to justify the new violence in iraq,afghanistan,Lebanon,Palestine,they fullfil their thirst for blood and flesh through their splatter movies,their sexual "liberty"(flesh consuming),video games and criminality,in their suicides and in the fact thet 13years old children slay the students of their clasrooms..This civilization is a wrong..why why must adopt any of its notions??

[Marbles]

Amnesty International accuse Iran over Human Rights violations..One more time this NGO shows its dark face,Amnesty was the one supported Israelis "rights" to settlements in west bank,the one who coincides Hamas with the zionist regime over war crimes and many more..Before starting a conversation about what exactly is "human rights",All westerns must consider first the deads of their wars-nowadays at least,the thousands of immigrants who after their wars lost their lives trying to pass in the fortress Europe,Minaret Banning,Hijab Banning,the starving in the third world as consequence of the global capitalism overexploitation of Africa and South America,the banning of critisism against zionist state as anti-semitism,the military coups and fake revolutions organized or fostered by the west to overthrow resistance or simply antiamerican regimes(Chile,Honduras,Venezuela,Iran,Moldova,Ukraine,and many many more...)The fact that all these childish NGO's do unilateral critisism on Sudan,Iran,China and much less in Saudia,Egypt and other US friendly countries..But what is this new religion suddenly appeared or not exactly new..but a real backward to 1789 days?a post modern phenomenon?

I only read what I quoted. I'm sorry but this is a truckload of bull[Edited Out].

You took the trouble to pen down the history of colonialism and wars in order to blame NGOs like Amnesty without realising the fact that Amnesty is not associated with any government whatsoever. Hellooo. . .it's an NGO!

From where have you got the idea that Amnesty disproportionately criticises governments which are not friendly with the West [sudan, Iran, China] and not pro-West governments like Egypt, Saudia etc? Have you actually ever read any Amnesty report? The damn organisation has criticised the US itself for retaining the death penalty.

Show me an on-record statement in which Amnesty "supported" Israelis right to the settlements in the West Bank. If you can't, then here is a nugget from the link below:

"“Israel allows the Palestinians access to only a fraction of the shared water resources, which lie mostly

in the occupied West Bank,

while the

unlawful Israeli settlements

there receive virtually unlimited supplies. In Gaza the Israeli blockade has made an already dire situation worse,” said

Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s researcher on Israel and the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories]

"

And:

In contrast,

Israeli settlers, who live in the West Bank in violation of international law

, have intensive-irrigation farms, lush gardens and swimming pools."

Weblink

I will give you a hint if you can't decipher. I have emboldened the words for a reason. Note the language used.

For God sake. Why do people log on to SC while drunk?

[Anti-Consumer]

I only read what I quoted. I'm sorry but this is a truckload of bull[Edited Out].

You took the trouble to pen down the history of colonialism and wars in order to blame NGOs like Amnesty without realising the fact that Amnesty is not associated with any government whatsoever. Hellooo. . .it's an NGO!

From where have you got the idea that Amnesty disproportionately criticises governments which are not friendly with the West [sudan, Iran, China] and not pro-West governments like Egypt, Saudia etc? Have you actually ever read any Amnesty report? The damn organisation has criticised the US itself for retaining the death penalty.

Show me an on-record statement in which Amnesty "supported" Israelis right to the settlements in the West Bank. If you can't, then here is a nugget from the link below:

"“Israel allows the Palestinians access to only a fraction of the shared water resources, which lie mostly

in the occupied West Bank,

while the

unlawful Israeli settlements

there receive virtually unlimited supplies. In Gaza the Israeli blockade has made an already dire situation worse,” said

Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s researcher on Israel and the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories]

"

And:

In contrast,

Israeli settlers, who live in the West Bank in violation of international law

, have intensive-irrigation farms, lush gardens and swimming pools."

Weblink

I will give you a hint if you can't decipher. I have emboldened the words for a reason. Note the language used.

For God sake. Why do people log on to SC while drunk?

1) Leonard Cohen and Amnesty International - An Unholy Alliance

By Tali Shapiro at Aug 1, 2009

I always talk about Israeli pacifists and their inability to see the barriers they place on the Palestinian road to justice, dignity, and human rights. Today I'd like to talk about a much more appalling occurrence; Amnesty International supporting Leonard Cohen's breach of the boycott of Israel.

The Leonard Cohen Myth

Personally, it's hard for me to understand the disillusionment of pro-Palestinian Leonard Cohen fans. In the history of his involvement with Israel, Cohen has always sided with Israel, or made statements of officially taking no sides, when his side was rather obvious:

"I don't want to speak of wars or sides ... Personal process is one thing, it's blood, it's the identification one feels with their roots and their origins. The militarism I practice as a person and a writer is another thing. ... I don't wish to speak about war."

In case I'm misconstruing my information, I'll repeat the quote I've embedded on my front page and have, personally, had no choice but to live by:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

~ Desmund Tutu

In Cohen's most recent history, he is consistent. He refuses to take a side, thus siding with the oppressor. Cohen has received a letter from many organizations (originated with PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel), asking him not to preform in Israel. As response, typically trying to balance out a situation in which balance is not there to be found, Cohen decided to preform for the Palestinian Prisoners‘ Club Society. The Society declined to entertain Cohen's notions of equality:

"We are now pleased to announce that we have received confirmation from the Palestinian Prisoners‘ Club Society that they will not be hosting Leonard Cohen in Ramallah. A strong consensus has emerged among all parties concerned that Cohen is not welcome in Ramallah as long as he insists on performing in Tel Aviv, even though it had been claimed that Cohen would dedicate his concert in Palestine to the cause of Palestinian prisoners. Ramallah will not receive Cohen as long as he is intent on whitewashing Israel‘s colonial apartheid regime by performing in Israel."

The Problem with the International Centrist

As if all this wasn't enough, Cohen was dead-set on clearing his conscious:

"All of the net proceeds from Leonard Cohen's September 24 concert at Ramat Gan Stadium will be earmarked for a newly established fund to benefit Israeli and Palestinian organizations that are working toward conciliation..."

The above quote is taken from non-other than the very-Zionist Jerusalem Post. Here's another quote from the same article:

"Attempting to maneuver through the barbed wire of both Israeli and US tax laws to enable the organizations to benefit from the concert, Kory realized that an intermediary neutral vehicle would be required to facilitate the financial funneling. He approached Amnesty International for advice, and the concept of a special fund was raised."

In other words, trooper Cohen maneuvered through the barbed wire with the assistance of the Amnesty International brigade. How poetic. How utterly embarrassing for Amnesty International to be portrayed favorably by the Jerusalem Post.

I understand big groups like Amnesty International have to be diplomatic and must exercise impartiality, and quite frankly I respect the ability to do so. However, being diplomatic doesn't mean endorsing pseudo-diplomatic initiatives, especially when they are completely avoidable, as in the case of Leonard Cohen.

To refrain from repeating myself, here's my own attempt at diplomacy, that I sent to Amnesty International (at the event of a response, I will update):

"Hello Amnesty International,

I'm a big supporter of Amnesty International and a regular donation contributor. As an Israeli citizen- who opposes the occupation and violence wreaked by my government, army and countrymen on the Palestinian people, and supports the international movement to boycott Israel- I am appalled that Amnesty USA might break the boycott efforts. The international community has set the terms for the Palestinian struggle and rightfully made it clear that no violence will be tolerated. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has done a wonderful job in stating the terms of the BDS campaign- I don't have to tell you what a huge commitment to a long-term strategy of non-violence that is. Terms which seem very fair and have been accepted around the world as the guidelines for this world-wide initiative.

When Leonard Cohen decided to come to Israel, PACBI made themselves clear, once again, that it is unacceptable, under the guidelines of a cultural boycott. As I'm sure you know, Cohen tried to appease PACBI by scheduling a show in Ramallah, which PACBI rejected. There is no need to be balanced in a situation that balance doesn't occur. Had Cohen canceled in Israel he would have been making a meaningful statement and propelled the boycott movement by sheer power of his fame. Performing in both Israel and the Occupied Territories is a wishy-washy peace-faking statement, the kind that Israeli "peace" groups have been making, in order to stroke their own sensibilities, meanwhile marginalizing the other organizations (Palestinian, Israeli and International), who believe in the importance of keeping one's stand, when it comes to the BDS initiative. "Peace" is a word that has lost all meaning in Israel, we demand human rights instead.

To find that Amnesty International might support this damaging endeavor is shocking, for me, but I take it you decided upon it with the best of intentions. Since I don't expect you to understand the inner workings of the Israeli Center-Left and its psychological motives, I urge you to consider simple facts: Leonard Cohen preforming in Israel breaches the cultural boycott and normalizes the occupation. This is not something that should be supported by Amnesty International. It is morally wrong and diplomatically wrong. The boycott movement must stick to a standard of "no business as usual", in order to be effective. I urge you to reconsider.

Awaiting your reply,

Tali Shapiro

"

What's Wrong with Balance?

If some of you are wondering how donating the proceeds of the concert to both Israeli and Palestinian organizations is a "damaging endeavor", here's PACBI's words:

"PACBI has always rejected any attempt to "balance" concerts or other artistic events in Israel--conscious acts of complicity in Israel‘s violation of international law and human rights--with token events in the occupied Palestinian territory. Such attempts at "parity" not only immorally equate the oppressor with the oppressed, taking a neutral position on the oppression (thereby siding with the oppressor, as Desmond Tutu famously said); they also are an insult to the Palestinian people, as they assume that we are naive enough to accept such token shows of "solidarity" that are solely intended to cover up grave acts of collusion in whitewashing Israel‘s crimes. Those sincerely interested in defending Palestinian rights and taking a moral and courageous stance against the Israeli occupation and apartheid should not play Israel, period. That is the minimum form of solidarity Palestinian civil society has called for."

And some wonderful words from Irish composer and novelist Raymond Deane:

"What could any reasonable person have against "programs for peace"?... By assisting Cohen in his ruse to bypass this boycott, Amnesty International is in fact taking a political stance, in violation of the premise of political neutrality with which it so regularly justifies its failure to side unambiguously with the oppressed. Amnesty is telling us: resistance is futile, the voice of the oppressed is irrelevant, international humanitarian law is a luxury."

In my words: I've long covered the problematic programs and people that dare call themselves "peacemakers". I'm thought of as the extreme of the extreme, in Israel, but if asking for unconditional human rights is extreme, then I am a proud extremists. Many on the self-proclaimed Left are easy to spot, their key phrase is:

"They deserve human rights/freedom/their own country, but..."

This "but" is a fearful one, rooted in a deeply ingrained and denied racism. The people who say this are well aware of Israel's crimes- past and present, and yet still afraid of what may happen, once we let the "two legged beasts" out of their cage, whether they call Palestinians that, or not. In my journey of discovering the truth behind Israel, I've realized some things are not negotiable. That is human rights and as a result, this boycott.

Learning from the Cohen/Amnesty Debacle

As the Zionist propaganda machine goes into overdrive, we may find new claims, resulting in the Cohen/Amnesty debacle. For now, Israelis are generally unaware of the international boycott against their state, already underway. Last time I observed any mention of this in the mainstream media was during Cast Lead, when Channel 10 aired the typically condescending and ignorant Before you boycott Israel! video. (Unfortunately, I couldn't find this article in their archives.) Nothing more responsible than your main stream media instilling blind confidence in you, when an international boycott of your country is rapidly developing.

I can't predict the creativity of the Zionist mind, but I'm expecting that when the boycott is finally made clear to Israelis, the first rebuttals will be that nothing is enough for those "demanding" Palestinians, and even when the "reasonable" and "unbiassed" offer to give a little to both sides is made, they still "demand the whole arm". These kinds of underhanded remarks are exactly why I decided to document the Cohen/Amnesty incident.

There should be no questions as to what the boycott's goals or guidelines are. Some areas are unclear to many, and these cases should be studied. But to those who are unclear, I direct you again to PACBI, who are the Palestinian voice on the issue of the boycott, and have articulated their terms thoroughly. When in doubt, contrast and compare your specific case to their statements. Implementing a boycott on Israel isn't as hard as Zionist propaganda would like you to think. The best way to deal with the occupation army is to arm yourself with knowledge.

Update 08.08.09:

Bil'in is always a personal issue for me. Here's their letter to Amnesty, in light of the Cohen debacle:

"

Dear Amnesty International,

We, members of the Bil'in popular committee against the wall and settlements, have always appreciated Amnesty International's role in the defense of human rights around the world and have recognized you as partners in our own struggle to defend our rights. We remember with great pleasure and pride your December, 2006 visit to our village to witness one of our protests. For these reasons we were surprised and deeply disturbed to learn that Amnesty International is sponsoring Leonard Cohen's upcoming concert in Israel.

We were disturbed not only because supporting Cohen's concert works against the wide grassroots Palestinian nonviolent initiative calling for the cultural boycott of Israel until it adheres to its obligations under international law, but because Amnesty's support for the concert hurts us in Bil'in personally and directly.

Leonard Cohen's concert, that Amnesty is sponsoring, is being handled by Israel Discount Bank. Israel Discount Bank's trading room and other computer services are run by an Israeli company called Matrix IT. Matrix IT's trading room is located on our villages land stolen by the illegal settlement of Modiin Illit (http://www.whoprofits.org/Company%20Info.php?id=633). Israel Discount Bank has also financed the similar construction of some of the building projects in the settlements of Har Homa, Beitar Illit and Ma'ale Adumim. Additionally, the Discount Bank is the second major shareholder of Mul-T-Lock, whose factory is located in industrial zone of Barkan, another illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank (http://www.whoprofits.org/Company%20Info.php?id=558).

We are sure that you and Amnesty International were not aware of these facts. Otherwise we are confident that Amnesty would not be involved in supporting an endeavor that profits directly from the abuse of our rights. We are confident that now that this was brought to your attention you will withdraw Amnesty's support. Furthermore, we encourage Amnesty to examine more closely any project that you plan to support in Israel in the future because, unfortunately, the Israeli economy as a whole is currently benefiting from the abuse of Palestinian rights..

In Bil'in we are currently facing a new wave of oppression against our popular campaign against the Wall and settlement built on our land. The Israeli occupation forces are frequently raiding our village at night and abducting people, mostly children, from their homes. The members of our committee are being targeted. Currently two leading non violent activists and organizers Mohammed Khatib and Adib Abu Rahme, along with seventeen other Bil'in residents, are imprisoned by the Israeli military. We are counting on your continued support for our struggle and are certain that you will not allow Amnesty International to lend its support to the violations of our rights.

In solidarity,

The Bil'in Popular Committee

"these are written from people sharing the same Human Rights fundamentalism with you...

2) http://openshuhadastreet.org/node/45 you find logic the same moment zionists slayed in gaza amnesty accusing Hamas for little rockets hurting anyone?????coinciding in the worlds opinions the occupiers with the resistance??because yes these days of December i found on my way some amnesty hipsters who shared leaflets of Amnesty around accusing only Hamas..

3)The fact that they are "non governmental" doesnt mean that they are non market or non corporation funded,and i hope that you know that western societies are no more their governments but their economic institutions-when we talk about west we dont mean countries but neoliberal capitalism http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:toM2Hu2dwHkJ:info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/57510/bennett_article.pdf+multinational+corporations+amnesty+international+funding&hl=el&gl=gr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShV4Zkp94B2Bz6V_vj5ZehACLSm7HvpTpytnOpAeVEn4hVzjMZ67llHVX_Dt8FEdcMwusZ3Kud3M7hosI7wkIWrHbHhvRMANRwfhoaSCbf5je-0cNFYNZvlG9cPKs5L0u2AW0Sb&sig=AHIEtbRGXAk0ivHgAUM19o__cEXqO5rZNA

4) Their critisism towards USA and friendly countries has not any tangible result because no one threats them with war or destabilization,from the other hand NGo's work is the best preparation for war in a non western friendly country,because justifies to the world opinion the invasions,it was symptomatic that when massive demonstrations took place against the last war in Serbia amnesty was throwing leaflets not against the invasion but for the crimes of Milosevic,same before Iraq war,same about womens rights in Afghanistan just before US attacked??(i have not sympathy for anyone of the above regimes but i hate much more hypocrisy).Same things with the Islamic Republic Of Iran now that the west targeting on it. All the masses will shout again good America offers democracy to the opressed.......good job amnesty..

5)what are these Human Rights and why people like you become fanatic and ready to kill when someone criticize this notion???Is something revealed by God??i know that Islamic societies had natural tolerance to the different religions and cultures,such instititutions as the human rights discovered for people like crusaders,colonialists and rest slayers who must obey to institutions to be polite.... the same ones who were drinking wine from human skulls when Islam was reading Aristotle and Plato..

[Marbles]

Make your claim in precise terms. Substantiate it with proper evidence. Don't copy paste full novels.

[Haji 2003]

Make your claim in precise terms. Substantiate it with proper evidence. Don't copy paste full novels.

I have some sympathy for the sentiment of the OP. Although long copy/pastes aren't helpful.

Here's a quick and dirty analysis. I wanted to know how much Amnesty covered different countries, on the assumption that the more human rights problems Amnesty considers a country to have the more it will feature in Amnesty reports. Sweden is a "nice" country and you'd expect it to feature relatively little and if you look at the hits below, you'll see it gets a fraction of the hits of other countries.

But what about the comparative coverage of various middle eastern countries? Israel has conducted actual wars over the past few years, in which thousands of people have died. At the same time it is an occupying power. But the level of coverage is nearly the same as that of Iran!

And what about Saudi and Egypt. Well they get half the coverage of Iran! Is Iran perfect? No way. Is it more democratic than Saudi or Egypt? I think so. Is there more press freedom? I think so. Yet Amnesty seems to think that things are so much worse in iran that it needs twice as much of Amnesty's attention!

When the western colonialists were invading other countries in the 18th/19th centuries, the missionaries may not have done any fighting, but their role was no less dangerous, it was to present the soft face of the colonialists and spread their ideology. Nowadays the colonialists no longer believe in Jesus (a.s.), so they have these NGOs.

To maintain credibility these people make some criticisms of Israel etc. but the reason they are allowed to do their work is because they do FAR MORE propaganda against countries such as Iran.

Search the Amnesty site for Egypt and you get 149 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+egypt&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Iran and you get 333 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+iran&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Saudi and you get 132 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+saudi&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Israel and you get 340 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+israel&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Sweden and you get 44 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+sweden&submitted=-1

[naro]

This civilization is a wrong..why why must adopt any of its notions??

did you only notice that now ? do you honestly give a damn about a piece of paper called human rights written by humans and about joke organizations like amnesty and many more ?

it's time to wake up and ignore them

[Anti-Consumer]

Make your claim in precise terms. Substantiate it with proper evidence. Don't copy paste full novels.

1)A University of Illinois professor of international law, Francis Boyle, who was a member of the board of Amnesty International USA at the end of the 1980s/early 1990s, claims that Amnesty International USA acted in ways closely related to United States and United Kingdom foreign policy interests. He stated that Amnesty, along with other human rights organisations in the US, failed to sufficiently criticise the Sabra and Shatila Massacre in Lebanon.Boyle stated his suspicion that the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, based geographically in London, UK, was also subject to this bias. He attributes the alleged links between Amnesty International and US and UK foreign policy interests to the relatively large financial contribution of Amnesty International USA to AI's international budget, which he estimated at 20%.

2)Critics have also pointed out that AI had a role propagating disinformation in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it claimed 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 – U.S. President George H. W. Bush showed AI's press release on a prime time interview. Prof. Francis Boyle, an AI USA director at the time, gives a detailed insider account of the way the AI press release was handled.[11] The normal process of double-checking and consultation was short-circuited in a rush to issue the press release. In an April 1991 statement, AI said that although its team was shown alleged mass graves of babies, it was not established how they had died and the team found no reliable evidence that Iraqi forces had caused the deaths of babies by removing them or ordering their removal from incubators

3)Human Rights Watch's work in Venezuela became the subject of controversy in late 2008. In September 2008, Venezuela expelled two HRW staff accused of anti-state activities[25] Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said "These groups, dressed up as human rights defenders, are financed by the United States. They are aligned with a policy of attacking countries that are building new economic models. On December 17 2008 an open letter was sent to the HRW Board of Directors in response to an HRW report, entitled, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela.118 scholars from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, México, the United States, the U.K., Venezuela, and other countries openly criticized HRW for a perceived bias against the government of Venezuela. The open letter criticized the report by stating that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility."[28] The letter also criticizes the lead author of the report, Jose Miguel Vivanco, for his "political agenda", and calls Mr. Vivanco to discuss or debate his claims in "any public forum of his choosing"[5]. Hugh O'Shaughnessy has accused HRW (on the Newstatesmen web site) of using false and misleading information, and has said the report was "put together with the sort of know-nothing Washington bias...". Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch responded, claiming the letter misrepresents "both the substance and the source material of the report." .Tom Porteoushas Human Rights Watch's London director (on the Newstatesmen web site) counters claim of bias and says that "...not only fails to provide any evidence for these allegations" and that "...more seriously he misrepresents HRW's positions in his apparent determination to undermine our well earned international reputation for accuracy and impartiality."

How i can send you my own evidences??by scanning their leaflets and upload them??I would do if i hadnt use them for my bathroom..copyright novel(you must not be ironic,its not politically correct,you dont respect my human rights...hahaha) was only the first part of my repply,as for the first topic it was more general because i thought that there are no people here supporting Amnesty,HRW or in the worst case working for them and that everyone here has the critical spirit to realize their role(Humanism Merchants),also i had to send you what they say themselves,their own members that share the same superficial ideology with them,read please my whole second post,-especially what the world bank says about ngo's-Hajj 2003 is correct,they do freely their dirty job just because they do far more critisism to non western allies..But why you avoid to explain me the "deep" inner meaning of human rights notion??because they are just a meteor semantic?i want an answer from a supporter, how a man made subjectivity can be an objective reality??and why human life is political matter?and who and when and why created human rights?we must have institutions for the obvious things??We dont want human rights dear humanist...we need Human Beeings

[Marbles]

But what about the comparative coverage of various middle eastern countries? Israel has conducted actual wars over the past few years, in which thousands of people have died. At the same time it is an occupying power. But the level of coverage is nearly the same as that of Iran!

And what about Saudi and Egypt. Well they get half the coverage of Iran! Is Iran perfect? No way. Is it more democratic than Saudi or Egypt? I think so. Is there more press freedom? I think so. Yet Amnesty seems to think that things are so much worse in iran that it needs twice as much of Amnesty's attention!

First, I don't think it's an entirely proper way to gauge the coverage of human rights violation in different countries by counting the number of hits or news items listed on AI site pertaining to a specific country. I will explain the weakness of this approach with an example.

Israel has surely showed militant aggression resulting in the deaths of thousands. It would be correct to criticise the relative lack of reporting on Israeli crimes if the number of hits equated the number of people killed or wars waged. You will identify 'themes' and stories symptomatic of a larger problem. For instance, as I see it, every house built in the occupied West Bank is a violation of the fundamental human rights of the occupied Palestinians. Hits/coverage of each house built would increase multi fold if NGOs reported every such construction. Same with the number of people killed in the latest Israeli onslaught against the Gazans. This can also explain the relative lack of coverage on Saudia compared to the coverage, say, on Iran. Saudia is the unfreest country in the ME but not a lot is happening on the ground. Whereas there have been troubles in Iran recently. Suppression of post election protests for instance, arrests of political dissenters, silencing of the print and electronic media with anti-government edge et cetera. This makes up most of AI's coverage on Iran.

Let me add that I'm not here to defend AI or any other NGO. I don't think they are free from bias with no political or ideological influence of their countries of origin. Take B'Tselem for instance - an Israeli human rights organisation [sounds paradoxical, I know]. This is what they do:

"As an Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law."

Link

I don't think B'Tselem would do anything to challenge the legitimacy of its government and undermine the security of Israel due to the very fact that it's Israeli itself. But still, the work they do is one of its kind. Unprecedented.

Most of the largest NGOs are Western and operate from the same framework. It would be naive to think that they are sinless angels who always get everything right. This is not to say that they are pawns of the Western governments, conspiring against anti-West countries and following a secret agenda. This is plain ignorant.

[Mohammed-W]

Amnesty International accuse Iran over Human Rights violations..One more time this NGO shows its dark face,Amnesty was the one supported Israelis "rights" to settlements in west bank,the one who coincides Hamas with the zionist regime over war crimes and many more..Before starting a conversation about what exactly is "human rights"

,All westerns must consider first the deads of their wars-nowadays at least,the thousands of immigrants who after their wars lost their lives trying to pass in the fortress Europe,Minaret Banning,Hijab Banning,the starving in the third world as consequence of the global capitalism overexploitation of Africa and South America,the banning of critisism against zionist state as anti-semitism,the military coups and fake revolutions organized or fostered by the west to overthrow resistance or simply antiamerican regimes(Chile,Honduras,Venezuela,Iran,Moldova,Ukraine,and many many more...)

The fact that all these childish NGO's do unilateral critisism on Sudan,Iran,China and much less in Saudia,Egypt and other US friendly countries..But what is this new religion suddenly appeared or not exactly new..but a real backward to 1789 days?a post modern phenomenon?a superficial uprising in societies with lack of values so they make the human life political itself?

After the Bourgeois revolutions the new rich class of slave traders,merchants,moneylenders and colonialist slayers invented human rights to protect themselves from the opressed,they also adopted the abstract notion of progress(which in reality is only development and infrastractures and not spiritual evolution of the human beeings and societies)that history goes forward and the western establishment is the destiny of humanity,but in reality western world had never civilization and human rights was the best trick that keeps alive the bubble gum we call west(not in reversed huntigtons terms of course..but in our difference),a way to hide its savaged nature from the very begining,

Europe before middle ages was a place of savaged tribes destroying everything in their passage they formed their first societies under catholic establishment,their inner violent and savaged charachter revealed in the destruction of any gnosis,when they received the arabic,persian and ancient greek gnosis from Islamic Civilization they hurried up to make arts and the violence became

external(crusades,colonialism,arab and jewish expulsions) and very very internal,they started to built clinics where they made experiments to the mental ill people and exclude the different from their societies-in opposition with the other civilizations who were naturally tolerant,then they started to destroy all of their old values and make new from zero,they do it every time,

Nazism was just a small reveal of western insticts awake..Human rights is their subjective reality for these ages,a substitute of things natural to other civilizations(friendship,love,hospitality-western has only institutions no real feelings)a system contrary to the human nature..a new Fascism but much worse,the best way to justify the new violence in iraq,afghanistan,Lebanon,Palestine,they fullfil their thirst for blood and flesh through their splatter movies,their sexual "liberty"(flesh consuming),video games and criminality,in their suicides and in the fact thet 13years old children slay the students of their clasrooms..This civilization is a wrong..why why must adopt any of its notions??

below in red is the part being discussed in painfull detail:

Amnesty International accuse Iran over Human Rights violations..One more time this NGO shows its dark face,Amnesty was the one supported Israelis "rights" to settlements in west bank,the one who coincides Hamas with the zionist regime over war crimes and many more

.............. i agree with the OP on everything else (havent dug deeply into available material on amnesty international and I dont have time right now), details of amnesty international will never be unanimously solved on shia chat since it would need and investigation and access to all relevent materials some classified, so it is a waste of time,and impossible to truly prove since we can just take a different view e.g

civilizing/colonizing, murderous/peace keeper etc two sides of the same coin.

that coin is the present time.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Mohammed-W

[Haji 2003]

Most of the largest NGOs are Western and operate from the same framework. It would be naive to think that they are sinless angels who always get everything right. This is not to say that they are pawns of the Western governments, conspiring against anti-West countries and following a secret agenda. This is plain ignorant.

No one is expecting them to get everything right. And I take your point regarding Israel. But are you seriously trying to explain away the discrepancy I flagged up for all those other countries as well?

OK so there is no conspiracy and there is NO agenda. BUT It is mighty curious that EVERY SINGLE pro-western, Sunni dictatorship, gets less coverage by Amnesty than Iran does. Are you really trying to say that this is somehow an oversight, a simple mistake, a one-off, based on the way in which things are counted etc.

The following countries have appalling human rights records and how many hits on the AI site?:

Turkmenistan (34), Uzbekistan (55), Azerbaijan (40)

Algeria has had a flipping pseudo civil war, with thousands killed by the state military machine, how many hits on the AI website: 78.

The only Arab country that comes close to Iran, is Iraq with 334. So the country where American action has led to hundreds of thousands dead after the invasion, where hundreds have been killed by private mercenaries, thousands are in jails without due process, God knows how many have been the targets of assassinations and yet the amount of AI coverage is just less than that for Iran.

The facts are staring you in the face and you're still making up fancy excuses. Seriously Bro, your hatred for the IRI will only lead you to humiliate yourself.

[Maryaam]

Search the Amnesty site for Egypt and you get 149 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+egypt&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Iran and you get 333 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+iran&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Saudi and you get 132 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+saudi&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Israel and you get 340 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+israel&submitted=-1

Search the Amnesty site for Sweden and you get 44 hits

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+sweden&submitted=-1

If you search the US site http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?CategoryID=%25&q=united+states&m=0&t=Article&submitted=-1&ProductText=All

You get 1475 hits.

When I used USA http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?CategoryID=%25&q=USA&m=0&t=Article&submitted=-1&ProductText=All

You get 910 hits which is more accurate (appears that "united" was searced for separately) - but still far exceeds the above.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Maryaam

[Marbles]

No one is expecting them to get everything right. And I take your point regarding Israel. But are you seriously trying to explain away the discrepancy I flagged up for all those other countries as well?

OK so there is no conspiracy and there is NO agenda. BUT It is mighty curious that EVERY SINGLE pro-western, Sunni dictatorship, gets less coverage by Amnesty than Iran does. Are you really trying to say that this is somehow an oversight, a simple mistake, a one-off, based on the way in which things are counted etc.

The following countries have appalling human rights records and how many hits on the AI site?:

Turkmenistan (34), Uzbekistan (55), Azerbaijan (40)

Algeria has had a flipping pseudo civil war, with thousands killed by the state military machine, how many hits on the AI website: 78.

The only Arab country that comes close to Iran, is Iraq with 334. So the country where American action has led to hundreds of thousands dead after the invasion, where hundreds have been killed by private mercenaries, thousands are in jails without due process, God knows how many have been the targets of assassinations and yet the amount of AI coverage is just less than that for Iran.

The facts are staring you in the face and you're still making up fancy excuses. Seriously Bro, your hatred for the IRI will only lead you to humiliate yourself.

You are again measuring the coverage of a country's human rights record with the number of hits it gets on the AI website and concluding that AI disproportionately criticises countries which are anti-West. I have already pointed out the problem with this method. Here is an good example. USA has 910 hits. It makes US the country with worst human rights record on AI. So. . .

A proper way would be to analyse the types of human rights violations in a country and the consistency of AI in condemning those violations. Of course frequency is also important but it makes sense that the current coverage of the incidents on AI website is related to their historicity. You would get a different impression if you overlooked the timing of the incidents. This explains why countries like Azerbaijan, Saudia, Algeria has fewer hits but Iraq, Iran and even Pakistan [which stands at 239] top the list.

Countries like Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE are pro-West Sunni dictatorships but there needs to be something happening for it to be reported. They can't post a new article every day to tell us that these countries are dictatorships which don't give rights to their people. You have enough coverage of other pro-West Sunni dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi [which are strategically much important than the tiny sheikhdoms], where violations of fundamental human rights do take place on a regular basis. How is that showing 'hatred' for the IRI? Why would you even say that bro? Maybe you don't see incidents in Iran as human rights violations because of your unfettered love for the government?

Edited December 11, 2009 by Marbles

[Haji 2003]

You get 910 hits which is more accurate (appears that "united" was searced for separately) - but still far exceeds the above.

Ahem.

That's because their search engine includes words that have the letters 'usa' in them, e.g. thousands and accusations. Also the USA stats will be skewed, because the USA has a global remit to spread freedom and democracy and since you have to engage in some torture and assassination in order to do this, their numbers will be 'artificially' boosted.

[Marbles]

Ahem.

That's because their search engine includes words that have the letters 'usa' in them, e.g. thousands and accusations. Also the USA stats will be skewed, because the USA has a global remit to spread freedom and democracy and since you have to engage in some torture and assassination in order to do this, their numbers will be 'artificially' boosted.

Exactly. One reason why this is a naive way to establish the amount of coverage a country gets.

Try America. It's 239. But the search also fetches South America, Americas etc.

[Haji 2003]

You are again measuring the coverage of a country's human rights record with the number of hits it gets on the AI website and concluding that AI disproportionately criticises countries which are anti-West. I have already pointed out the problem with this method.

I am not doing this at all. What I am doing is asking, *how much attention does AI focus on the human rights issues of a particular country*? I am then asking, *is this level of coverage reasonable based on what we know about it?*

Let's look at the first page of hits for 2 countries, Saudi and Iran.

Here's what comes up for Iran.

1. Iran - general page 17/11/09

2. Iran - a feature article 7/12/06

3. Action for Iran Trade Unionists 14/9/09

4. Iranian women's rights defenders 10/12/09

What do we have for Saudi:

1. Appeal for professor facing flogging 7/5/08

2. Sri Lankan teenager faces beheading 15/2/08

3. Amnesty appeal for detained blogger 7/1/08

4 Call for gang rape lawyer to be spared punishment 4/12/07

There are 3 more stories for Saudi. But they are all from 2007.

Again this is rough and ready, but judging by the dates what this tells me is that Amnesty appears FOR WHATEVER REASON to be more willing to commit resources to gathering the latest information about Iran.

Are we seriously expected to believe that NOTHING happened in Saudi this year???

There is also an interesting QUALITATIVE difference between the coverage for the two countries. Iran's deals with broad issues dealing with the rights of entire groups. The coverage for Saudi focuses on specific cases (mainly beheadings). There appears to be, for example, no equivalent coverage of Saudi trade unionists, or women's rights.

[Marbles]

But why you avoid to explain me the "deep" inner meaning of human rights notion??because they are just a meteor semantic?i want an answer from a supporter, how a man made subjectivity can be an objective reality??and why human life is political matter?and who and when and why created human rights?we must have institutions for the obvious things??We dont want human rights dear humanist...we need Human Beeings

For a discussion to be fruitful it is indispensable that the debtors at least stand on a common ground, agree to the definitions and scope of the key concepts, and develop a point of reference from where they can take the discussion further. This is not the case here. It is futile to discuss anything with you given the sort of pseudo-philosophical and complete nonsensical "questions" that you have asked. I know it's not just rhetoric. You belong to a different planet - an "anti-consumer" who cannot live without an internet connection and a PC to to make that connection work.

[Marbles]

Are we seriously expected to believe that NOTHING happened in Saudi this year???

There is also an interesting QUALITATIVE difference between the coverage for the two countries. Iran's deals with broad issues dealing with the rights of entire groups. The coverage for Saudi focuses on specific cases (mainly beheadings). There appears to be, for example, no equivalent coverage of Saudi trade unionists, or women's rights.

You are pointing at things that aren't there. It is the 'qualitative difference' that needs to be taken into account. How many women rights protests, and their brutal suppresion, have been held in Saudia to be reported on AI? How many members of the political opposition have been jailed? Who are Saudi trade unionists working for their rights? These things don't even exist in Saudia. I am sure NGOs can't report non-events. On the other hand, this has happened in Iran just this very year and it regularly happens. You have to understand that Iran having more hits than Saudia doesn't make her [iran] comparatively 'worse', not in the eyes of the AI, not in the eyes of its readers like me and you.

[Mohammed-W]

I am not doing this at all. What I am doing is asking, *how much attention does AI focus on the human rights issues of a particular country*? I am then asking, *is this level of coverage reasonable based on what we know about it?*

Let's look at the first page of hits for 2 countries, Saudi and Iran.

Here's what comes up for Iran.

1. Iran - general page 17/11/09

2. Iran - a feature article 7/12/06

3. Action for Iran Trade Unionists 14/9/09

4. Iranian women's rights defenders 10/12/09

What do we have for Saudi:

1. Appeal for professor facing flogging 7/5/08

2. Sri Lankan teenager faces beheading 15/2/08

3. Amnesty appeal for detained blogger 7/1/08

4 Call for gang rape lawyer to be spared punishment 4/12/07

There are 3 more stories for Saudi. But they are all from 2007.

Again this is rough and ready, but judging by the dates what this tells me is that Amnesty appears FOR WHATEVER REASON to be more willing to commit resources to gathering the latest information about Iran.

Are we seriously expected to believe that NOTHING happened in Saudi this year???

There is also an interesting QUALITATIVE difference between the coverage for the two countries. Iran's deals with broad issues dealing with the rights of entire groups. The coverage for Saudi focuses on specific cases (mainly beheadings). There appears to be, for example, no equivalent coverage of Saudi trade unionists, or women's rights.

then that proves that the iranian system does not suppress everyone and tackles issues and allows cririsism etc (not going into the degree)

and that saudi arabia has a handful of individuals they will persecute mercilessly. to put off anyone who wants to criticize, theyre would end up dead and their families keep schtoom. (me thinks)

[Irishman]

I am not doing this at all. What I am doing is asking, *how much attention does AI focus on the human rights issues of a particular country*? I am then asking, *is this level of coverage reasonable based on what we know about it?*

Let's look at the first page of hits for 2 countries, Saudi and Iran.

Here's what comes up for Iran.

1. Iran - general page 17/11/09

2. Iran - a feature article 7/12/06

3. Action for Iran Trade Unionists 14/9/09

4. Iranian women's rights defenders 10/12/09

What do we have for Saudi:

1. Appeal for professor facing flogging 7/5/08

2. Sri Lankan teenager faces beheading 15/2/08

3. Amnesty appeal for detained blogger 7/1/08

4 Call for gang rape lawyer to be spared punishment 4/12/07

There are 3 more stories for Saudi. But they are all from 2007.

Again this is rough and ready, but judging by the dates what this tells me is that Amnesty appears FOR WHATEVER REASON to be more willing to commit resources to gathering the latest information about Iran.

Are we seriously expected to believe that NOTHING happened in Saudi this year???

There is also an interesting QUALITATIVE difference between the coverage for the two countries. Iran's deals with broad issues dealing with the rights of entire groups. The coverage for Saudi focuses on specific cases (mainly beheadings). There appears to be, for example, no equivalent coverage of Saudi trade unionists, or women's rights.

Click the link below and look over at the right hand column that has many links to current Amnesty International complaints on Saudi!!

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/death-sentences-saudi-sorcery-claims-20091210

[Marbles]

Again this is rough and ready, but judging by the dates what this tells me is that Amnesty appears FOR WHATEVER REASON to be more willing to commit resources to gathering the latest information about Iran.

Are we seriously expected to believe that NOTHING happened in Saudi this year???

Dates of cases reported from Saudia: http://www.amnesty.org/en/middle-east-and-north-africa/west-gulf/saudi-arabia

Ongoing: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/death-sentences-saudi-sorcery-claims-20091210

I am not doing this at all. What I am doing is asking, *how much attention does AI focus on the human rights issues of a particular country*? I am then asking, *is this level of coverage reasonable based on what we know about it?*

I would say yes.

then that proves that the iranian system does not suppress everyone and tackles issues and allows cririsism etc (not going into the degree)

and that saudi arabia has a handful of individuals they will persecute mercilessly. to put off anyone who wants to criticize, theyre would end up dead and their families keep schtoom. (me thinks)

Makes sense. Not much 'worth suppressing' is happening on the ground in Saudia. Not because Saudia is a perfect society but because people get scared to the point of pissing in their pants when they think about the consequences of mustering up against the polity.

[Guest Zahratul_Islam]

To suggest they have loyalties to certain groups because they target Iran "more" shows a lack of insight into their goals as a secular NGO with no ties or loyalties to anyone. They have been critical of Israel, especially after what happened in Gaza and they have been urging the UN to address these crimes (while also urging the UN to work on its lack of efficiency as an international organization) and hold Israel accountable. They had a very detailed and extensive report on Israeli war crimes, and I remember reading their thorough reports on the oppression of shiites in Saudi Arabia.

I am not bothered that their energies are currently directed towards Iran nor do I think that is an indication of some sort of ulterior motives, they might feel as though Iran is more ripe to this kind of change than Saudi Arabia given the current events and the willingness of both the government or the Iranian people to take these things into account. This is why the emphasis is on woman's rights rather than the annual despicable, indefensible murder of homosexuals in Iran or Saudi Arabia (although those get covered thoroughly as well). I can think of many countries that get even LESS attention and are more corrupt, but after September 11th AI has obviously directed its energies in a certain direction for legitimate reasons. Are they without flaws? No. Is the world better off because they exist? YES. They do the world more good than many NGO's and are extremely critical and thoughtful about what countries they address and when and why they address them.

[Haji 2003]

To suggest they have loyalties to certain groups because they target Iran "more" shows a lack of insight into their goals as a secular NGO with no ties or loyalties to anyone.

Oh really? There's been some interesting coverage of HRW recently:

In a New York Times opinion piece, Robert L. Bernstein, who was Human Rights Watch chairman from 1978 to 1998 and is now its founding chairman emeritus, wrote that with increasing frequency, the watchdog casts aside the important distinction between open and closed societies, "in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region. On the other hand, he said, most Arab and Iranian regimes remained "brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256037270325&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

So between 1978 and 1998 we were reading HRW reports thinking, 'hey these are cool neutral dudes, doing charity for the benefit of mankind", whereas all along the head honcho was an unreformed Zionist.

Anyway back to AI.

To suggest they have loyalties to certain groups because they target Iran "more" shows a lack of insight into their goals as a secular NGO with no ties or loyalties to anyone.

ok

I can think of many countries that get even LESS attention and are more corrupt, but after September 11th AI has obviously directed its energies in a certain direction for legitimate reasons.

I'm not sure how the first quote sits with the second. Either they are totally impartial/objective/even handed or they are not. You can't say that they are and then argue that it's entirely reasonable that they're not!

I must say that I am troubled by your general perception (perhaps shared by other Americans) that somehow 9/11 gave a licence to that country and the West to do whatever they want. In particular your choice of the words 'certain direction' is very troubling because the US has amply demonstrated since 9/11, that it's very keen to direct its energies in TOTALLY THE WRONG DIRECTIONS.

If Amnesty were exploring the corrupt relationships between Saudi princes and various western firms and the buying off of Wahhabi scholars - that would be a reasonable start to addressing the issues behind 9/11.

But as Bro Marbles last link shows all Amnesty does is publish details of the last beheading in Saudi.There is no attempt at all to dig any deeper. In contrast any problems in Iran are explored from all sorts of angles. And what did Iran have to do with 9/11? Zilch. Just like Iraq.

[Marbles]

But as Bro Marbles last link shows all Amnesty does is publish details of the last beheading in Saudi.There is no attempt at all to dig any deeper. In contrast any problems in Iran are explored from all sorts of angles.

Yep, due to the scope and scale of things happening on the ground in both countries. The suspicion of disproportionate targeting of a country is unfounded.

If Amnesty were exploring the corrupt relationships between Saudi princes and various western firms and the buying off of Wahhabi scholars

I don't think this falls under the domain of an NGO.

In a New York Times opinion piece, Robert L. Bernstein, who was Human Rights Watch chairman from 1978 to 1998 and is now its founding chairman emeritus, wrote that with increasing frequency, the watchdog casts aside the important distinction between open and closed societies, "in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region. On the other hand, he said, most Arab and Iranian regimes remained "brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256037270325&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

"He said Israel was home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world."

Tell me if it is also true for any other country in the Middle East.

[Guest Zahratul_Islam]

Oh really? There's been some interesting coverage of HRW recently:

In a New York Times opinion piece, Robert L. Bernstein, who was Human Rights Watch chairman from 1978 to 1998 and is now its founding chairman emeritus, wrote that with increasing frequency, the watchdog casts aside the important distinction between open and closed societies, "in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region. On the other hand, he said, most Arab and Iranian regimes remained "brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256037270325&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

So between 1978 and 1998 we were reading HRW reports thinking, 'hey these are cool neutral dudes, doing charity for the benefit of mankind", whereas all along the head honcho was an unreformed Zionist.

Anyway back to AI.

Yeh.. lets do that instead seeing as that is what this thread is about ;) AI has been EXTREMELY critical of Israeli war crimes and has (because apparently it needs to be repeated) urged the UN to address these crimes and improve the efficiency with which they do so. I will take the information on HRW with a grain of salt until I do my own research.. but the idea that there are corrupt organizations out there is most certainly not a shocker, nor was it something that I did not address in my post.

I'm not sure how the first quote sits with the second. Either they are totally impartial/objective/even handed or they are not. You can't say that they are and then argue that it's entirely reasonable that they're not!

I must say that I am troubled by your general perception (perhaps shared by other Americans) that somehow 9/11 gave a licence to that country and the West to do whatever they want. In particular your choice of the words 'certain direction' is very troubling because the US has amply demonstrated since 9/11, that it's very keen to direct its energies in TOTALLY THE WRONG DIRECTIONS.

If Amnesty were exploring the corrupt relationships between Saudi princes and various western firms and the buying off of Wahhabi scholars - that would be a reasonable start to addressing the issues behind 9/11.

But as Bro Marbles last link shows all Amnesty does is publish details of the last beheading in Saudi.There is no attempt at all to dig any deeper. In contrast any problems in Iran are explored from all sorts of angles. And what did Iran have to do with 9/11? Zilch. Just like Iraq.

There is a HUGE difference between them owing loyalty to a certain country, religion, or ethnic group, and AI re-evaluating their goals and shifting based on a critical issue that was raised after 9/11. That is why those two sentences work together perfectly fine. It isn't that hard to see the difference between a group that has political affiliations or loyalties and a group that has to think critically about how to direct its energies, so I was assuming that the sentence would not need to be spoon fed to you.

AI has never suggested that Iran or Iraq had anything to do with Sepetember 11th, nor was that the implication of what I said.

As for Saudi Arabia, you are seriously suggesting that AI has not been insightful or dug deep into the reason for their human rights violations? Because that, coupled with your other statements (suggesting AI follows in the footsteps of the United States or acts in accordance with American public opinion) would indicate you have a LOT of research to do on this particular NGO before you can offer an analysis of why the are just so gosh darn biased.

[.InshAllah.]

On HRW and AI: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/hrw-to-jewish-donors-everythings-under-control-trust-us/

Regarding AI, one of their directors recently said:

“…as a human rights organization, unfortunately, we ourselves are sometimes not as strong as we should be, to put it mildly. And when this conflict happened, we wrote a very strong letter to Secretary Rice, unusually strong for Amnesty where we said the US should cease arms transfers to Israel, which is something we generally do not say. We also said the US should condemn the lackadaisical response. In response to that email we sent out, we thought, ‘Oh my God! Donors will get upset. They’ll stop joining Amnesty. They’ll cancel their memberships.’ We actually got the most amount of donations from that one email in all of 2008. …I was excited about the money because it shows that there are people, our major donors, who are eager to see us do more work like this. But again, it has to come from just taking those bold steps…

This shows that in the past (and maybe present but not as much) there has been a worry at AI that if they do the 'wrong' thing in the eyes of their donors, they could lose a lot of money. I'm glad that this attitude is changing, but you can't ignore the strong possibility that donors influenced AI's activity in the past, and still do but to a lesser extent.

Edited December 11, 2009 by .InshAllah.

[Guest Zahratul_Islam]

On HRW and AI: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/hrw-to-jewish-donors-everythings-under-control-trust-us/

Regarding AI, one of their directors recently said:

“…as a human rights organization, unfortunately, we ourselves are sometimes not as strong as we should be, to put it mildly. And when this conflict happened, we wrote a very strong letter to Secretary Rice, unusually strong for Amnesty where we said the US should cease arms transfers to Israel, which is something we generally do not say. We also said the US should condemn the lackadaisical response. In response to that email we sent out, we thought, ‘Oh my God! Donors will get upset. They’ll stop joining Amnesty. They’ll cancel their memberships.’ We actually got the most amount of donations from that one email in all of 2008. …I was excited about the money because it shows that there are people, our major donors, who are eager to see us do more work like this. But again, it has to come from just taking those bold steps…

This shows that in the past (and maybe present but to a lesser extent) there has been a worry at AI that if they do the 'wrong' thing in the eyes of their donors, they could lose a lot of money.

didn't stop them from doing the "right" thing though. That is critical.

[.InshAllah.]

AI do many ''right'' things. The question is whether they do enough, are consistent across different countries, and how many ''wrong'' things they do as well. If it becomes clear that upsetting donors is a big worry for them that puts a question mark on their objectivity. How many anti IRI donors do they have, and how much money do they donate? I doubt that they have many pro-IRI donors, so does this discrepancy lead to a bias in their reporting? You have to at least admit that there's a good chance. one the other hand, they probably have many pro AND anti Israel donors, so there is more pressure from the other side.

I'm glad they did the right thing when it came to Israels recent massacre, and I hope they continue to improve the objectivity of their reporting, but Im not convinced that their work is impartial.

Edited December 11, 2009 by .InshAllah.

[Guest Zahratul_Islam]

AI do many ''right'' things. The question is whether they do enough, are consistent across different countries, and how many ''wrong'' things they do as well. If it becomes clear that upsetting donors is a big worry for them that puts a question mark on their objectivity. How many anti IRI donors do they have, and how much money do they donate? I doubt that they have many pro-IRI donors, so does this discrepancy lead to a bias in their reporting? You have to at least admit that there's a good chance. one the other hand, they probably have many pro AND anti Israel donors, so there is more pressure from the other side.

I'm glad they did the right thing when it came to Israels recent massacre, and I hope they continue to improve the objectivity of their reporting, but Im not convinced that their work is impartial.

All of that is perfectly valid and legitimate. My own research into the matter has made it clear that they are undoubtedly a group that does far more good than bad and have shown an immense amount of impartiality which has manifested itself (as you pointed out) in their condemnation of Israel despite pressures that might have been present to do otherwise.

There is absolutely no hard evidence to suggest that AI is pandering to anti iran or pro saudi donors that have kept them hushed up or overly concerned about one or the other. All AI does is report the facts and its sponsorship is most likely compromised of groups that want to appear concerned or are genuinely concerned with human rights.

I think the fact that the only thing that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel have in common is their hatred for Amnesty International speaks for itself.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Zahratul_Islam

[Anti-Consumer]

For a discussion to be fruitful it is indispensable that the debtors at least stand on a common ground, agree to the definitions and scope of the key concepts, and develop a point of reference from where they can take the discussion further. This is not the case here. It is futile to discuss anything with you given the sort of pseudo-philosophical and complete nonsensical "questions" that you have asked. I know it's not just rhetoric. You belong to a different planet - an "anti-consumer" who cannot live without an internet connection and a PC to to make that connection work.

The fact that im anti-consumer does not mean i am primitivist...Super intellectual the reality is that you dont know how to answer... as i expected,you cant talk with argumentation only with events as any other fundamentalist, what you call pseudo-philosophical are questions that stem from the most contemporary philosophical thought of the last 40 years and you are just a paleo-liberal(still believing blindly that the world is going forward!!!! -linear history notion) from the ages of John Locke so i should ask you first why you have pc....the fact that you know good english does not make incredible what you say,in reality you answer with populism and fanaticism,i am from other planet?i dont think so..Al Hamdulillah the 5 of the 6 billion people in earth are enough mentally healthy to ignore

human rights..And yes its not just rhetorics Allah gave me mind to doubt,heart to suffer,and eyes to see clear every aspect of the cancer called western civilization,i dont like this reality but im not a pathetic fatalist like you to accept everything as it is,else i wouldnt be Twelver Shia and proud but a braindead secularist or wahhabi(same coin different....clothing). if Insalla human rights collapse one day the earth will still exist(so human rights is not an axiom or a fundamental prerequisite-as for example the oxygen for life) and without them as so many centuries before ,that people were much more spiritual and looked upon to the sky,and didnt think like 5 years old kids who sing along with michael jackson "we are the world,we are the children"..

[Haji 2003]

"He said Israel was home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world."

Tell me if it is also true for any other country in the Middle East.

The only problem is that despite these institutions etc. Israel still manages to run the biggest open-air prison camp in the world. All you have done is to show how useless these things can be. Though obviously it's good superficial stuff to appease ordinary Americans amongst others.

This shows that in the past (and maybe present but not as much) there has been a worry at AI that if they do the 'wrong' thing in the eyes of their donors, they could lose a lot of money. I'm glad that this attitude is changing, but you can't ignore the strong possibility that donors influenced AI's activity in the past, and still do but to a lesser extent.

Bro you are perfectly right in this observation. You see AI has a council that is elected by its membership, it also has an executive body. Now for an organisation that is so keen on poking its nose into everyone else's business don't you think it is strange that they've never polled their own membership to find out their values and beliefs? And then declared this to the rest of the world.

You see they are very good at the motherhood and apple pie stuff, that everyone would agree with:

Our vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=74

But as anyone knows, in the real world, there are choices and priorities. How much do they spend on different countries/regions, how are those decisions made? On this thread everyone's been shooting in the dark, because we DON'T KNOW. Because Amnesty does not tell us. Or if it does it hides it pretty well.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Haji 2003

[Anti-Consumer]

What must understand,those people here supporting human rights activists and NGOs, is that all these are just a painkiller for the deep wounds that created the Western world it self, a superfluous naive that cures the remorses of the bourgeoisie ladies and youth-while believing at the same time that offer something important in the world,NGos are just a pastime for alternative students and high class residents of the developing world who want to abandon their traditions and their roots,by adopting any new product of the West (from coca cola, big brother and sexual "empowerment" to human rights) I think the questions I asked-to reveal us the "mystical" and "divine" truth behind human rights(their supporters) perfectly reasonable .. because how can you believe in something without being able to prove of its value??? believe in human rights as the hooligans in their favorite team?or as the others in their favorite punk rock band? .. Non-governmental organizations is the painkiller of Western capitalism to prevent the uprising of the oppressed, the medicine that will cure the illness is the resistance, and fortunately opressed have still Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran (which is not heaven just because heaven is the sky) as Venezuela, Bolivia and others.

[Dirac Delta function]

Some years ago, I was walking through a shopping centre here in East London, and an AI do-gooder stopped me and talked to me about the organisation, and of course asked me if I would be interested in supporting it with a small donation. I replied in the negative, telling him that I thought they were biased against Islamic countries. I didn't have the time nor the inclination for a debate, so I left it at that and went on.

I still believe that they may well be biased against Muslim states, but how bad is this? If they are reporting every single human rights violation by a Muslim state against its own people and no violationsof a non-Muslim state against Muslim people (in a possibly different state), we would want them to report more of the latter, but should we actually complain about the former? If the end result is that the Muslims are less oppressed as a result of naming and shaming, it is still to the benefit of Muslims. The key question is, if an organisation like AI had never existed, would Muslims be better or worse off? Because I would hate to think all we knew about the travesties of justice happening from certain Muslims states comes from the mouth-pieces of their goverments, because we know how free the press is in ME countries. The Western, biased NGOs like AI may not be objective, but at least they raise some kind of awareness about the suffering of Muslim people in certain countries, even if they unfairly leave out the suffering of others.

The solution for us is to one-up them, and create our own human rights NGOs, which look out for Muslims in their own countries first.

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that our governments exist to serve and protect us, we don't exist to serve and protect governments - we should shine a spot light on their every move.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Dirac Delta function

[Maryaam]

I think the fact that the only thing that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel have in common is their hatred for Amnesty International speaks for itself.

Yep. Most definitely.

Criticism of Israel has been deservedly very harsh.

AI do many ''right'' things. The question is whether they do enough, are consistent across different countries, and how many ''wrong'' things they do as well. If it becomes clear that upsetting donors is a big worry for them that puts a question mark on their objectivity. How many anti IRI donors do they have, and how much money do they donate? I doubt that they have many pro-IRI donors, so does this discrepancy lead to a bias in their reporting? You have to at least admit that there's a good chance. one the other hand, they probably have many pro AND anti Israel donors, so there is more pressure from the other side.

"Donors mean they continue to operate. It seems they have indentified as a potential conflict on their own.