Over the last several days, Muslims have been raining rockets down all over Israel so the question must be asked. Why does Amnesty International object to Jews defending themselves?
My question was rhetorical, by the way.
UPDATE: If you don't think Jews should be able to defend themselves, than I guess you wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with lying through your teeth about them.
My question was rhetorical, by the way.
UPDATE: If you don't think Jews should be able to defend themselves, than I guess you wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with lying through your teeth about them.
4 comments:
Recall that they were founded in 1960 by a British lawyer who was incensed about an instance of a political dissident being jailed that he read about in the newspaper. Remember what we used to call 'captive nations'? Nothing happening in any of those interested him. It was an incident in Portugal.
I was once a member, and you'd get these alerts to send letters to officials about this or that person. Their focus was invariably about a person in some place like Morocco or Singapore which violated people's rights retail. To some extent, that was structural. Their local cells are advocates on behalf of specific people, and those are the places where officials might listen to you and where family members might not be too intimidated to contact you. Can't help but suspect those vectors exhaust the reason you didn't hear much about the worst offenders.
Wm. Rusher pointed out 40 years ago that their annual reports would devote as much space to Guatemala as they would to the Soviet Union and that they were pleased to hire an Australian Communist as the their research director in London.
The American chapter of the organization had (a generation ago) one agreeable aspect, which is that its board was chosen by competitive elections among the membership. Aside from that, it always received a better press than it deserved. Amnesty declared cop-killer Wesley Cook (aka "Mumia Abu Jamal") a 'prisoner of conscience' in 2000. The humbug quotient has tended to get worse over the years.
What's depressing is that, other than Freedom House, Amnesty is about the least corrupt 'human rights' NGO.
those vectors exhaust the reason
Those vectors don't exhaust the reasons...
Here's their 'overview' for Britain:
'Women in Northern Ireland continued to face significant restrictions on access to abortion. Counter-terrorism laws continued to restrict rights. Full accountability for torture allegations against UK intelligence agencies and armed forces remained unrealized."
Any mention of political dissidents being prosecuted for not being on board with the sort of shticks promoted by university administrators and social workers? No, of course not. Instead, we get nail biting over perverted gynecologists not being permitted to dismember the unborn. These people are simply not serious.
Claims that Israel did something are always subject to verification from credible sources. Palestinians make up stories, and fake photos and videos, with great regularity.
This is just like any "hate crime" story in the US. Wait until evidence demonstrates it wasn't a hoax before responding.
Post a Comment