35 ms·
read what they wrote. let's take their examples: “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian
by compsciphd 3y ago
read what they wrote.
let's take their examples:
“We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said.
the experts are making the claim that Israel's attacks are indiscriminate. They do not have the ability to make that claim.
I would argue making that claim as fact already undermines their "impartiality".
In fact, it's well known that their are not impartial in general. As one can see from the report they quickly put out on the "hospital bombing"
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...
they are not a useful source. They repeatedly make claims of fact that they have zero ability to determine if true or not. For those that believe the IDF has zero credibility, one has to also believe they don't.
The experts quoted have no desire for the truth, as demonstrated by zero desire to correct themselves when they are shown to be spreading falsehoods.
- ah27182 3y agoI recommend you give it a full read as they explain (with examples) why they believe these acts are indiscriminate. Regardless, the ex-ceo of WebSummit has made comments similar to what the UN is stating. I don’t see why that’s a cancellable offense or antisemitic. I suspect his connections to Qatar are what got him in real trouble.
- compsciphd 3y agothey might believe they are, but they are stating as fact. They don't qualify their remarks. And we know this from the link I shared where they talk about the hospital "bombing" as fact as what you would call "examples", which we now are generally accepting as false. That alone removes any of their credibility. They report as fact things they do not know to be true, but only believe to be true, and even when we know that their "truth" is false, they don't correct themselves.
- stephen_g 3y agoI think it’s much the same as the US’s drone strike program in the Middle East - after so many times, it would take either incredible bias or actual irrationality to believe that these strikes were not approved with the knowledge that they would kill civilians, and potentially mostly kill civilians. Maybe if it were just the first few dozen times, but it gets harder and harder to be charitable about their intentions…