Gaza civilian death toll increasing

[*d*]

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights has tallied the number of civilian causalties from the Israeli offensive on Gaza, and they're not as low as other estimates. They count 1285 Palestinians killed, of which 895 were civilians and 167 were civil police officers(not engaged in fighting). That leaves 223 Hamas combatants killed. The independent PCHR organization, which is not connected with Hamas, is affiliated with the ICJ and is funded by a number of (mostly western)international non-governmental organisations.
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2008/22-01-2009.htm

Are they bias? Or are Israeli estimates bias? You be the judge.

 

[basketcase]

Given the political climate and the events, the Israeli numbers would be based on estimates since they didn't seem to have access to bodies. The Palestinian numbers may be based on actual bodies but there is a benefit to them in reducing the number of dead that were combatants. The questions about PCHR would be about how they accessed their data.


Here's a take on the PCHR report. The source obviously has a bias as does PCHR but they raise some interesting points.

A complicating factor in quantifying the number of civilian casualties is the call by Hamas leaders for their members to shed their uniforms and fight in civilian clothing ( "Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery,"New York Times, Jan. 11, 2009).
...
PCHR data is quite extensive and detailed, yet a sampling of newspaper accounts and a cursory review of items posted by the Maan News Agency, another Palestinian source, uncovered a number of omissions and misclassifications of combatant status. A number of individuals described by PCHR as civilians or without any classification information, were identified in Maan announcements as members of militant groups:
...
CAMERA's examination of PCHR's reports found no mention of several senior commanders from Hamas who were reported killed :
...
The Israelis identified by name two Hamas fighters among the fatalities at the UNRWA school shelled on Jan. 6, but their names do not appear in the PCHR report for that date.
...
• Out of 1042 fatalities, at least 782 were males aged 15 or higher. While males over age 15 make up approximately 25 percent of the Gaza population, they made up over 75 percent of the fatalities.
...
Of these 172, 49 (28 percent) are 15 -17 year old males. Considering that this age group accounts for approximately 8 percent of the under-18 population, 15-17 year old males are overrepresented as fatalities
...
It has also been widely reported that Hamas militants executed a number of Fatah supporters. The estimates vary at this point from a low estimate of 10 to as many as 70. Are these buried in the PCHR figures for civilian deaths?
...

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1603

 

[jackd1959]

basketcase

Nice job on you previous post... it was an informative and compelling case showing the "possibility" that the Palestinians were inentionally inflating the civilian body count.

It is well known that many HAMAS fighters removed their "uniforms" when the Israelie crossed into GAZA to make it easier to hide among the civilian population and make it more difficult for the Israelie military to eliminate them. Even some of the clips that were own youtube showed Palestinian's removing the shirts of obvious HAMAS fighters so that they would appear to be civilians.

I personally don't buy that HAMAS "Police" are not rightful targets for the Israelies...

The real question I have is why is there such a concern by the Palestinians over civilian casulties when it is obvious they don't care at all about Israel civilian casulties... They fired rockets into civilian populations, and targetted Israelie civilians with suicide bombers for years. To think that you can then hide among your own civilians to gain propaganda support for your cause doesn't cutr with me... some may buy into that but I don't...

 

[fuji]

A lot of anti-Israeli groups have draped themselves with some sort of official/authoritative title so that the media will accept their bullshit without question.

The most egregious case is the Arab dominated UNHRC appointing a guy with a history of propagating rabidly anti-Israeli conspiracy theories as their special investigator. UNRWA is another one that takes the cake.

Worse still is these biased sources are often quoted in the media "anonymously" as "a UN official" or "a human rights organization" so that readers aren't even able to dig out the truth even if they wanted to do some homework.

 

[*d*]

Given the political climate and the events, the Israeli numbers would be based on estimates since they didn't seem to have access to bodies. The Palestinian numbers may be based on actual bodies but there is a benefit to them in reducing the number of dead that were combatants. The questions about PCHR would be about how they accessed their data.


Here's a take on the PCHR report. The source obviously has a bias as does PCHR but they raise some interesting points.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1603

Another thing you should remember is that the Camera article was about the Jan. 14th PCHR report. The latest PCHR report is updated to Jan. 22nd and may now have corrected some discrepancies.

 

[*d*]

A lot of anti-Israeli groups have draped themselves with some sort of official/authoritative title so that the media will accept their bullshit without question.

The most egregious case is the Arab dominated UNHRC appointing a guy with a history of propagating rabidly anti-Israeli conspiracy theories as their special investigator. UNRWA is another one that takes the cake.

Worse still is these biased sources are often quoted in the media "anonymously" as "a UN official" or "a human rights organization" so that readers aren't even able to dig out the truth even if they wanted to do some homework.

In what way is the UNHRC Arab dominated? What's the percentage of voting members within the UNHRC that are Arab countries?

 

[fuji]

In what way is the UNHRC Arab dominated? What's the percentage of voting members within the UNHRC that are Arab countries?

There's a large pro-Arab/anti-Israeli voting block in the General Assembly that ensures that the UNHRC remains stacked with countries that are pro-Arab and opposed to Israel; and generally that UNHRC remains under the control of regimes which might otherwise be accused of human rights violations themselves.

This is why it has, in two years, condemned Israel 15 times but failed to condemn Sudan for its actions in Darfur, failed to condemn Sri Lanka for its actions against Tamils, and so on.

 

[gryfin]

Given the political climate and the events, the Israeli numbers would be based on estimates since they didn't seem to have access to bodies. The Palestinian numbers may be based on actual bodies but there is a benefit to them in reducing the number of dead that were combatants. The questions about PCHR would be about how they accessed their data.


Here's a take on the PCHR report. The source obviously has a bias as does PCHR but they raise some interesting points.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1603

Unfortunately you are relying on nut sites like CAMERA again. Among it's many embarrassing moments, CAMERA was caught trying to infiltrate Wikipedia in order to rewrite contributions to Wikipedia so that they favored Israel and demonized Palestinians. In July 2008, Harper's Magazine did a nice expose on the email trail that was uncovered including the fact that a Senior Researcher at CAMERA was masquerading as a Wikipedia editor under an assumed name. Wikipedia investigated and sanctioned 5 editors for their role.

This quote summarizes CAMERA well:

"CAMERA is ready to exempt itself from the demands for accuracy that it aims at the media. And like others engaged in the narrative wars, it does not understand the difference between advocacy and accuracy."

Gershom Gorenberg The American Prospect, May 1, 2008.

 

[fuji]

Gryf, he did point out that CAMERA had an agenda. However the quotes that he selected were factual criticisms of PCHR and deserve an answer. I think what we have here are two biased organizations, and in this case one is showing how the other is biased.

It does not mean that you should trust CAMERA's statistics, but it does show that PCHR's are fraudulent as well!

 

[*d*]

There's a large pro-Arab/anti-Israeli voting block in the General Assembly that ensures that the UNHRC remains stacked with countries that are pro-Arab and opposed to Israel; and generally that UNHRC remains under the control of regimes which might otherwise be accused of human rights violations themselves.

This is why it has, in two years, condemned Israel 15 times but failed to condemn Sudan for its actions in Darfur, failed to condemn Sri Lanka for its actions against Tamils, and so on.

You will find that a small percentage of UNHRC voting members are Arab countries.

 

[gryfin]

Gryf, he did point out that CAMERA had an agenda. However the quotes that he selected were factual criticisms of PCHR and deserve an answer. I think what we have here are two biased organizations, and in this case one is showing how the other is biased.

It does not mean that you should trust CAMERA's statistics, but it does show that PCHR's are fraudulent as well!

An agenda? CAMERA has been caught with its pants around it knees while trying to infiltrate an organization in order to deceive readers and other editors within Wikipedia. It was their goal to foist a fraud upon readers.

Unless you support that activity, I don't know why you would trust anything from this group of nuts unless you support such activities.

 

[jackd1959]

An agenda? CAMERA has been caught with its pants around it knees while trying to infiltrate an organization in order to deceive readers and other editors within Wikipedia. It was their goal to foist a fraud upon readers.

Unless you support that activity, I don't know why you would trust anything from this group of nuts unless you support such activities.

you should read your own posts...

 

[fuji]

You will find that a small percentage of UNHRC voting members are Arab countries.

You will find that UNHRC is dominated by an agenda set by the Organization for the Islamic Conference which co-opreates in a voting block with alot of other human rights abusing states.

How else do you explain their appointment of Richard Falk, and their focus on Israel virtually to the exclusion of all other human rights issues worldwide? I mean seriously, 15 condemnations of Israel, and NOT ONE for Sudan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, etc?

And Richad Falk as the special investigator!? I mean, wouldn't you normally want to select as your investigator someone who has a reputation for being fair, unbiased, and objective? Instead they picked someone who is historically an anti-Israeli partisan.

 

[fuji]

Unless you support that activity, I don't know why you would trust anything from this group of nuts unless you support such activities.

Regardless, the points raised need to be answered, and if PCHR goes around calling IDF an "occupation army" or whatever then it is more or less declaring that it is a biased source to begin with.

Short story, regardless of what you think of CAMERA, we can dismiss PCHR as propaganda.

 

[*d*]

You will find that UNHRC is dominated by an agenda set by the Organization for the Islamic Conference which co-opreates in a voting block with alot of other human rights abusing states.

How else do you explain their appointment of Richard Falk, and their focus on Israel virtually to the exclusion of all other human rights issues worldwide? I mean seriously, 15 condemnations of Israel, and NOT ONE for Sudan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, etc?

And Richad Falk as the special investigator!? I mean, wouldn't you normally want to select as your investigator someone who has a reputation for being fair, unbiased, and objective? Instead they picked someone who is historically an anti-Israeli partisan.

Does the OIC have influence over the majority of UNHRC voting members? I think not. All UNHRC resolutions condemning Israel are voted in even though the majorty of its member seats are non-Arab/non-OIC influenced countries. In fact I believe the UNHRC is far more politically neutral then say the UNSC. The UNHRC's job is to raise only as much concern as necessary until the international community takes action to ensure world human rights violations cease. But in the case of Israel, while there is much more condemnations, no enforcement action is being taken. That's why the UNHRC keeps pushing what appears to be an anti-Israel agenda. It keeps trying to heighten world awareness of Israel's human rights violations until something is finally done. As for the bias Richard Falk -a Jewish American... hmmmm. He's not been alone in trying to get the world's attention of Israel's violations. The special rapporteur of the UNHRC before Falk was J. Dugard who has compared Israel's policies to the South African apartheid.

 

[*d*]

Regardless, the points raised need to be answered, and if PCHR goes around calling IDF an "occupation army" or whatever then it is more or less declaring that it is a biased source to begin with.

Short story, regardless of what you think of CAMERA, we can dismiss PCHR as propaganda.

I'm afraid that an invading military operation is an 'occupation army'. And Gaza is still under Israeli occupation since airspace and seacoast are still under Israeli control.

 

[fuji]

I'm afraid that an invading military operation is an 'occupation army'. And Gaza is still under Israeli occupation since airspace and seacoast are still under Israeli control.

You could argue that sure, the point is that any agency that goes around calling IDF the "occupation army" is not even remotely unbiased and therefore its data and claims are suspect.

 

[fuji]

Does the OIC have influence over the majority of UNHRC voting members? I think not. All UNHRC resolutions condemning Israel are voted in even though the majorty of its member seats are non-Arab/non-OIC influenced countries.

A majority on UNHRC have no business participating in any sort of human rights organization because a majority of them have deeply suspect human rights histories of their own.

In fact I believe the UNHRC is far more politically neutral then say the UNSC.

That's an outrageous opinion. UNSC statements have the support of a majority of UNSC _and_ unanamous consent of all the core members. That means nothing issues from UNSC unless it is supported by all of Russia, China, the US, Britain, France, plus a majority--if UNSC releases a statement with that kind of backing you can be pretty sure it is a widely held view.

UNHC on the other hand works on a simple majority system and it is dominated by human rights abusers, and yes, those countries all vote as a block to support one another, and as a result on Arab issues OIC carries a majority vote. That includes anything relating to Israel.

But in the case of Israel, while there is much more condemnations, no enforcement action is being taken. That's why the UNHRC keeps pushing what appears to be an anti-Israel agenda.

You aren't taking yourself seriously here. Seriously, Gaza versus Darfur? What enforcement action specifically is being taken in the case of Darfur? In the case of Myanmar?

This is not an argument you want to get into--you are going to have to show that what is happening in Israel is more than fifteen TIMES worse than what is happening anywhere else in the world, based on UNHRC's voting record.

You can't plausibly claim that a few hundred deaths in Gaza are worse than the many, many thousands killed in an actual genocide in Darfur!

As for the bias Richard Falk -a Jewish American...

The guy has published an opinion that he thinks the Bush administration is complicit in the 9/11 attacks, as in, helped make them happen; he supported Khomeini in Iran; and he thinks it's OK to use violence against the US govt. providing you are protesting a war. That's in addition to having a long-standing gripe against Israel, since long, long before getting the UN job.

He is about THE MOST biased person you could pick for the job, he doesn't even make a pretense of being unbiased.

Oh yeah, AND he thinks there is nothing wrong with the Palestinians using suicide bombers to kill Israelis, he thinks it is a "valid" form of resistance. That is something so extremist I haven't even been able to get Gryfin to admit publically that he believes it.

Seriously, how can you look at the appointment of Richard Falk and NOT fundamentally question what is going on at UNHRC? Maybe you think because it has "UN" in its name it is supposed to be unbiased? But plainly it has been co-opted.

 

[landscaper]

HAmas and Hexxbolla have a habit of majically appearing bodies when counting them and recounting them and .... well you get the picture.

 

[persis]

Regardless, the points raised need to be answered, and if PCHR goes around calling IDF an "occupation army" or whatever then it is more or less declaring that it is a biased source to begin with.

Short story, regardless of what you think of CAMERA, we can dismiss PCHR as propaganda.

Are you kidding ????????

YES
The United Nations Human Rights Council does have an agenda ...
The agenda is to investigate and report violations of Human Rights . . . Surprised?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
And for your information when it was created in 2006, Israel voted against its creation..., even IRAN did not vote for it, abstained from voting..