Instead of attacking the Jews for defending themselves from genocide, you should be attacking Cameron. Can you explain why UK troops are occupying Afghanistan and Libya and murdering their civilians? These countries never called for the extermination of the UK, never launched a rocket attack on your civilians and they never launched a war against you. Or do you believe that your own economic interests justify murder and stealing other people's oil?

is typical of the ngo's in the world today. the majority of these uk ngo's show a rabid hatred of israel and do anything to weaken this state. the remark by the finnish executive should be turned on it's head. these ngo's are all scum. we need to play by different rules. ban all ngo's with any bias whatsoever against israel. a plague on all their houses.

... in AMNESY INTERNATIONAL, since this organization tends to have selective memory of wrongdoing by nations.

was a sometime kgb agent. it's sole founding purpose, though it has changed somewhat, was to embarass the west, using the west's own institutions, in the interests of soviet foreign policy. in the 1930's many jews did join the kgb in the west, when the soviets were seen as the only counter to fascism. paradoxically amnesty has become very conservative in that it has not moved with the times, and still sees the old threats (which are extremely diminished) rather than new and future threats. they have marginalised themselves. i believe the mother of the founder of amnesty turns up in the book "spycatcher" when she exposes kim philby (british broadcaster and academic) as a kgb agent, to a british secret service asset. well she would know having been one herself. with her son it appears the apple did not fall far from the tree.

Bill makes the articles point in a clear and concise fashion. His "only a jew" comment says it all. Israel has become the battleground that unites antisemites, nazis, islamists, left leaning political and "human rights" advocates and there respective NGO's and minions in a war against Jews. This says less about Israel and Jews and much more about these groups, their historic amnesia, racism, colonial guilt, and moral relativism. No surprise many are founded in Britain with its long tradition of genocide, racism and colonialism. A bit of advice, do not use us to work out your collective post colonial guilt. You are not the old empire any longer and we are not the old Jew. All together now - hey hey, ho ho, Amnesty International really blows - catchy

Observation: emotional outbursts are usually tolerated on these forums but factual, URL link supported opinions are seldom. NGO-monitor listed the main financiers - the usual EU gov. but Ynet meticulously deletes these informations, particularly if the British government is involved. At the same time rabid antisemitic posters are welcomed.

The mother of Peter Benenson was never a KGB agent. AI's original targets were the Warsaw Pact countries. Must think think himself another Abbas - busy inventing history that never happened.

You really aren't that stupid are you? You want me to cite those particular laws, really? Are you that ignorant that you don't know the basic laws governing the re-establishment of the State of Israel? Okay I will do so. San Remo Treaty of 1920. Article 25. In the territories Iying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18. This was affirmed in the Mandate of Palestine 1922 as part of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. UN Charter Article 80 1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. Is that specific enough for you? Care to challenge those laws? Going to tell again how those laws don't exist? Are you going to continue to ignore international laws? Now can you produce a single law that refutes those?

One can go down the list: Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, Save the Children, etc. - all originally intended to promote human rights in *closed* societies - communist states, dictatorships, etc. - not open democracies, or social welfare. So many have lost their mission statements, and adopted the memes of the far left "progressives" and their third world cohorts. And a key part of that meme is that "Israel is evil". One sees the same bending over backwards so as not to violate ivory tower purity is seen in many courts where, for example, terrorists denied asylum can't be sent back to their home countries because "they might be tortured", so they're let loose on the streets. Give me a break! I haven't given money to Amnesty in years because I know what they've become.

YEAH, AMNESTY INTL. AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND THE MAFIA?

your claim is ridiculous. Countries such as Iran Syria and Lybia have no difficulty getting int'l recognition in such bodies as the UN human rights councils. It is only Israel that is barred this type of recognition. Israel is the only country in the world which has been denied full UN membership status

Gee and the like often quote San Remo as "establishing" the state of Israel, which is a bit odd considering it came 28 years before the state's foundation Nonetheless, the quote Gee has provided says nothing of the sort.. andfurthermore is not from the text he/she claims but is in fact a quote from section 25 of the 1922 Palestine Mandate So much for cut-and-paste intellect The 1920 San Remo Resolution (not treaty) established a trusteeship over "Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" It's quite simple : Home does not equal state.. esp. when the mandate states that such a home cannot prejudice the rights of the indigenous people Now Gee, you can come back with your usual abusive and personal remarks.. but when you are trying to make a point and can't even get the name of the treaty you are quoting from correct, it says a lot about the value of your argument

What YOU'RE saying is nonsense. That easy, huh ? Israel has returned land in Sinai, Lebanon, Gaza and parts of the West Bank. What has it gotten in return ? certainly not peace. The more land the Arabs get back, the more they want. And considering that Arabs initiated these wars to begin with, what have THEY done for peace ? They refuse to even say that Israel has a right to exist. The Arabs give Israelis no reasons to return any more land.

I have about as much respect for AI as I do Goldstone. NONE!

Before stating that I lied or even made a mistake why don't you go a read those treaties. The borders for the San Remo Treaty were established by the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920 and that included all of what is know as Jordan today. And NATIONAL HOMELAND does not mean a state - in what language? It does EXPLICITLY state that. You really should take an English language lesson because that is exactly what it means. By the way there is not a single scholar of international law of any note whatsoever in the entire world that agrees with a single word you wrote. They all state that it does mean exactly what I stated. Now for a really hard one, care to name a single legal claim for the Arabs? I bet you won't even try.

Peter, you have it backwards. The so called Pals are the aggressors and occupiers, not the Israeies. It is they who won't allow Jews to live in what they think is thier territorie. Open your eyes and get real.

Notice to pro-Israel lawyers. You have an excellent opportunity to build your careers while attacking one of the most loathsome, hypocritical Israel bashing phony "human rights" organizations of all. It's time for legal warfare against Amnesty International. We must not be silent in the face of it's modern day blood libels.

Excuse me! Indigenous people? The only "indigenous people" of the area are the decendents of Jacob, currently known as Israelies. The people presently known as "Pals" came to the land after the European Jews and Jews from the former USSR had settled the land, legally bought from the owners, draining the swamps of the North and creating an economic reallity where the Arab workers could upgrade their standard of living.

you just stoop to personal abuse and snide comments.. Again, there was no san remo treaty.. there was a "declaration" after the conference, but not a treaty You claimed you were quoting this document (although erroneously called it a treaty) but the quote you pasted was from the 1922 Palestine Mandate As you cannot even acknowledge this basic error, but prefer to engage in petty remarks, there is really no point in continuing the discussion

I get so tired of hearing and reading about the Israeli's occupying land. That land was given to the Jews long before any of us were on this earth. It blows my mind when everybody else is attacking the Jews, and the Jews are the ones who are blamed.

From Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. " Your claim that there is no call for a country in Palestine is nonsense just like the rest of your claims. The SAN REMO TREATY of 1920 does exist and your claims that it is merely a declaration are false. In short you are wrong on every point. As you cannot even acknowledge this basic error, but prefer to engage in petty remarks, there is really no point in continuing the discussion. You lack the knowledge to engage in anything.

And literature before you attac a whole nation. If you don't know the history- but out.

That Israel IN FACT is the only human, democratic, sain nation in the middle east. While the fanatic islam believer use death as a goal AND as a mean, Israel will do whatever it takes to spare innocent life and it's own people's.

Firstly the article is about Amnesty International, not the occupation, and the writer has shown that AI identifies with those that call for “Islamic .... jihad and Resistance” against Israel, It can therefore no longer be called an independent apolitical human rights organisation. Regarding your comparisons, occupied France never attacked Germany, like Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and lost, and black South Africans were South African citizens. Palestinians are not so your comparisons are irrelevant. Palestinians do however continue to support armed resistance which they say will continue even if Israel withdraws from the West Bank,( as happened after israel's withdrawal from Gaza and South Lebanon), simply because they deny Israel's right exist under any circumstances. Listen to Hamas on a daily basis. Many here in Israel, including myself oopose Israel's partial control of the Palestinian population, and support a Palestinian State, but leaving unilaterally without a peace agreement is not an option. You might live cosily in the UK, but I live 4 miles from the West Bank and don't want rockets on my house.

There are 53 Muslim nations in the UN, and only 1 Jewish one. Its called an automatic Majority. In any case Israel does claim the West Bank-it refers to it as diputed land whose final status will be determined by negotiation. The UNSC resolutions that count, eg 242, do not state it is Palestinian land either.

It is more accurate to compare Israel to the Allies that occupied Germany after World War II. The allied occupation was relatively short as Germany came to its senses and quickly started to make amends for its atrocities. Here in the Middle East it isn't so easy, but progress is being made - Gaza is independent and most parts of the West Bank are under autonomous rule and Arabs living there enjoy one of the highest standards of living of any region in the Middle East. Complete independence for the Palestinians can be quickly reached as soon as they abandon terrorism and violence aimed at the destruction of Israel.

' 'Recently, the head of Finland’s branch of Amnesty International, Frank Johansson, called Israel “a scum state.” ' ' I'm shamed that you're from my country, Mr. Frank Johansson. You should really consentrate on real human rights violators as Syria and Iran.