Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: White (phosphorous) lies

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1232100169292
Human Rights Watch is one of the most powerful organizations claiming
to promote international morality and law, but along with Amnesty
International and the United Nations, shares responsibility for the
transformation of these principles into weapons aimed at Israel.
In the most recent example, HRW, headed by Kenneth Roth, initiated a
campaign alleging that the IDF was using white phosphorus weapons
unlawfully in the conflict in Gaza with Hamas. The organization issued
a news release, followed by a more detailed publication, while
officials gave press interviews to promote the allegations. Marc
Garlasco, who claims the title "senior military analyst" (based on a
short stint in the Pentagon), declared, "White phosphorous can burn
down houses and cause horrific burns when it touches the skin...
Israel should not use it in Gaza's densely populated areas."
In a few hours, the "white phosphorous" story was featured in dozens
of newspapers, Internet blogs and television news programs. IDF
officials, including Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Ashkenazi,
denied that Israel was using phosphorous in anti-personnel weapons,
but this did not slow the viral spread of this story.
HRW's "evidence" was based entirely on innuendo and unverifiable
"eyewitness" reports. One report states that "[o]n January 9, Human
Rights Watch researchers on a ridge overlooking Gaza from the
northwest observed multiple air-bursts of artillery-fired WP that
appeared to be over the Gaza City/Jabalya area. In addition, Human
Rights Watch has analyzed photographs taken by the media on the Israel-
Gaza border." HRW does not name its researchers; it does not provide a
detailed location of its observation, nor does it identify the photos
it "analyzed" making independent verification of this "evidence"
impossible.
INDEED, TWO days later, the International Committee of the Red Cross,
which certainly cannot be accused of a pro-Israeli bias, issued a
statement that backed the IDF statements. "Using phosphorus to
illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international
law," it said, adding that there was no evidence that Israel was
"using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down
buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk." (Flares assist
search and rescue forces in saving the lives of wounded soldiers and
preventing Hamas from snatching the bodies of dead soldiers. To claim
that such operations are illegitimate is, in and of itself, immoral.)
But these points were secondary to the NGO ideologues - the important
point was that the images fit the dominant narrative of Israel as
always guilty of war crimes, and of the Palestinians (or, in the 2006
Second Lebanon War, Hizbullah) as innocent victims. In this campaign,
HRW was joined by Amnesty International, B'Tselem and the Palestinian
Center for Human Rights. The latter two are funded by the European
Union, ostensibly to promote democracy and human rights. When Hamas
launched a phosphorus shell into Israel, these organizations,
including HRW, were silent, as has been the case regarding the use of
human shields in Gaza and other real war crimes.
By the time the ICRC confirmed the IDF statements, the damage was done
- the image of Israel as a serial violator of international law and
human rights was reinforced - a major success for Hamas. CNN, the
Times (London) and Christian Science Monitor ran major stories,
embellished with quotes from doctors in Gaza, including propagandist
Mads Gilbert, who claimed to have seen phosphorous burns. Gilbert also
justified the 9/11 terror attacks, but this did not prevent the
government-funded Norwegian Aid Committee from financing his
incitement. (CNN quoted but then ignored Dr. Peter Grossman, a burns
expert in California and unconnected with the conflict, who stated
that "it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether
white phosphorus was responsible.")
Based on these reports, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan repeated
the false claim in an anti-Israel diatribe, thereby deepening the rift
between Ankara and Jerusalem and increasing the sense of isolation in
Israel.
THE FALSE white-phosphorous allegation is part of a pattern led by HRW
that reflects the modern version of the blood libel. For the past
year, HRW has been a leader in the use of international legal rhetoric
such as "collective punishment," to attack Israel. And in the July 30,
2006 Kana incident in the Second Lebanon War, Lucy Mair (HRW's former
researcher with a prior history of anti-Israel campaigning)
disregarded the Red Cross on-scene estimate of 28 casualties (which
proved to be the actual figure) in favor of a higher estimate of 54
provided by an alleged "survivor." HRW's false estimate was widely
picked up by the media and further disseminated by HRW in an August 1,
2006 press release, sparking an international outcry and leading to a
48-hour halt in IAF operations, which extended the war.
Similarly, Marc Garlasco led HRW's high-profile "investigation" into
the Gaza Beach incident in 2006, repeating claims that "the evidence
overwhelmingly supports the allegations that the civilians were killed
by artillery shells fired by the IDF," and ignoring details that did
not fit his ideological "conclusion." Garlasco was also among the
authors of HRW's "Razing Rafah" report of 2004, which contained many
unverifiable and disputed claims, erased the context of terror and was
used to justify HRW involvement in anti-Israel boycott campaigns.
In this way, HRW and other self-proclaimed human rights organizations
have contributed a great deal to undermining the moral basis of
morality and international law. Instead of repeatedly calling for
"independent investigations" of Israel, the donors to HRW need to
undertake an investigation of how this once-serious organization has
been destroyed from within.
----
"Dovesse caderne uno in un luogo affollato farebbe una strage. E certo
che sono un crimine di guerra"  (Luca Logi / rodewalder / Golda Meir,
febbraio 2008)
http://raionim.blogspot.com/2009/01/certo-che-i-qassam-sono-pericolosi_05.html

 Human Rights Watch
non ci sono solo loro. L'argomento ad hominem non regge, come tutta la
vostra propaganda...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056839.html