Israel named by U.N. as the top human rights violator.

[mr friendly guy]

Friendly, does the fact that Israel's opponents propose a constant stream of anti-Israel UN resolutions 'because they can' mean we should not worry about whether some (or most) of those resolutions are poorly grounded?

You can be suspicious that some or most of these resolutions are poorly grounded. However you can only show it, not by pointing out they make lots and lots of accusations, but by looking at the evidence presented for each individual case (eg as Eyl did). Now if a particular source continues to make inaccurate claims again and again, we should by default disbelieve unless they show some effort this time to actually gather evidence. My problem is the article in the OP default to the former. Its the same as if I dismiss someone's claim on the grounds that they are bias, but wrapped around a bit more rhetoric.

Suppose, as eyl says, one of those resolutions was blatantly false to the point where momentary fact-checking could prove it wrong. That would be a great illustration of my point about how bias of the form 'we condemn you more than you deserve' can shade over into 'we condemn you by lying about you.' Morever, such a hypothetical groundless UN resolution serves to grossly undermine the UN's credibility on isues involving Israel.

Agreed. However you still needed to fact check that particular claim did you not? You didn't just go "ah these guys make a lot of claims against X, thus it must be bias and false." That's kind of my point. The article goes straight to the latter, and while some people respond well to that type of rhetoric, it just raises alarm bells with me when you use that type of fallacy straight off the bat.

You see the problem here? Making excuses for the country that proposed a groundless resolution is irrelevant. Saying they only proposed a resolution full of easily refuted lies because "that's the only way they can strike at their enemy" is missing the point. The UN is supposed to be above that, above being used as a tool for one nation to strike at another, above being so meretricious that they become a vehicle for political biases and ethnic feuds and don't even bother fact-checking the condemnations they deliver from whoever is pulling their puppet-strings today..

That is the real problem and the real concern here.

Its not an excuse, its an explanation why they do this. Lots of accusations doesn't necessarily mean the accusations are false, yet alone everyone of those is false. We can be suspicious, but ultimately we need to fact check before we start using the line "my accusers have an ulterior motive for doing so." We have to be careful not to do this in general, but this applies even more strongly to the IvP conflict, because after decades of conflict, neither side has clean hands anymore.

[Simon_Jester]

The point people are making, I think, vis. Saudi Arabia condemning anyone ever on human rights has to do with the fact that many view UN resolutions as nothing more than tools of realpolitik or exercise of international vendettas using holier-than-thou pronouncements.

"You too" is not, in and of itself, a valid argument, but when you're dealing with an organization like the UN that allegedly tries to exert positive, humanist change through dialogue and diplomatic pressure, then it is very important that that organization be seen as impartial if you want anyone involved to take it seriously ever.

THIS.

Basically, every time the UN issues five condemnations of Israel and one of Saudi Arabia on women's rights, or four on Israel's treatment of Palestinians and none on (to pick the example given earlier) Burma's treatment of the Rohinga, the UN sullies its own credibility. It permits itself to be used as a tool. Used by nations that are trying desperately to use the UN as a tool to fight their proxy conflict for them, having failed when they tried launching direct attacks.

Since the UN doesn't even have a meaningful function except in the context of its own impartiality and commitment to world peace and human rights... that's a problem.

If you want to spit on Israel, spit on Israel. Israel has a gift for giving people reasons to do that. But don't turn the UN into your personal attack dog, and don't tolerate others doing so.

Friendly, does the fact that Israel's opponents propose a constant stream of anti-Israel UN resolutions 'because they can' mean we should not worry about whether some (or most) of those resolutions are poorly grounded?

You can be suspicious that some or most of these resolutions are poorly grounded. However you can only show it, not by pointing out they make lots and lots of accusations, but by looking at the evidence presented for each individual case (eg as Eyl did). Now if a particular source continues to make inaccurate claims again and again, we should by default disbelieve unless they show some effort this time to actually gather evidence. My problem is the article in the OP default to the former. Its the same as if I dismiss someone's claim on the grounds that they are bias, but wrapped around a bit more rhetoric.

So what?

Bluntly, all I'm hearing is a lot of noise about how we shouldn't do a thing. A thing which I for one am not doing.

Why are you working so hard to perform apologetics for a transparently bad practice? Why can't you just say "bias is wrong, maybe some of these resolutions are true, maybe none of them are true, but the UN should be above bias and should speak out against all abuses, not just the ones that people try to make it speak out against when they're using the UN as an attack dog?

Suppose, as eyl says, one of those resolutions was blatantly false to the point where momentary fact-checking could prove it wrong. That would be a great illustration of my point about how bias of the form 'we condemn you more than you deserve' can shade over into 'we condemn you by lying about you.' Morever, such a hypothetical groundless UN resolution serves to grossly undermine the UN's credibility on isues involving Israel.

Agreed. However you still needed to fact check that particular claim did you not? You didn't just go "ah these guys make a lot of claims against X, thus it must be bias and false." That's kind of my point. The article goes straight to the latter, and while some people respond well to that type of rhetoric, it just raises alarm bells with me when you use that type of fallacy straight off the bat.

You see the problem here? Making excuses for the country that proposed a groundless resolution is irrelevant. Saying they only proposed a resolution full of easily refuted lies because "that's the only way they can strike at their enemy" is missing the point. The UN is supposed to be above that, above being used as a tool for one nation to strike at another, above being so meretricious that they become a vehicle for political biases and ethnic feuds and don't even bother fact-checking the condemnations they deliver from whoever is pulling their puppet-strings today..

That is the real problem and the real concern here.

Its not an excuse, its an explanation why they do this. Lots of accusations doesn't necessarily mean the accusations are false, yet alone everyone of those is false. We can be suspicious, but ultimately we need to fact check before we start using the line "my accusers have an ulterior motive for doing so." We have to be careful not to do this in general, but this applies even more strongly to the IvP conflict, because after decades of conflict, neither side has clean hands anymore.

Except that it is nakedly obvious when the accusers have an ulterior motive for doing so, when there is a persistent pattern that blind chance does not explain.

As an example from the field of jury selection, suppose that you have eighty juror candidates drawn from a jurisdiction where 50% of the population is African-American. Four of the eighty candidates are African-American. Juror candidates are supposed to be chosen randomly... but the odds of flipping the coin eighty times and having it come up 'tails' only four times are vanishingly low- on the order of one in a quintillion.

Basic common sense tells you there's jury selection bias going on in a situation like that.

At some point, there is just no point in wasting time in apologetics, it becomes totally obvious that a system which is supposed to condemn injustices impartially is in fact being selective, and is only targeting those which it is popular to target, regardless of whether those are the injustices that merit the most time and attention.

And sure, maybe some of the UN panel's accusations are true- but who cares? Given that there is evidence of bias, if I want to know about the state of women's rights in Israel, I cannot ask the UN anymore. Because they have a track record which makes it obvious that there is bias. I'd have to check the UN reports against some other, less biased source anyway... in which case the UN report is redundant, and I might as well check the less biased source directly.

It's like, if you want to know whether someone is at fault in a lawsuit, don't bother asking the lawyer who's paid to sue them. It's a waste of time- you know the lawyer will tell you they're at fault, whether it's true or not. Sometimes it's true- but since you'd have to do your own research anyway because you can't trust the lawyer... why not just cut out the middleman and do the research anyway?

If the UN is willing to be complicit in a process by which nations that have enemies are being hit with disproportionate numbers of UN resolutions raised by those enemies, regardless of the objective merits underlying the resolutions... there is no point paying attention to UN resolutions. Some of the allegations in the resolutions might be true, but it doesn't matter, because they are not a trustworthy source on the question. It's as simple as that.

[mr friendly guy]

So what?

Bluntly, all I'm hearing is a lot of noise about how we shouldn't do a thing. A thing which I for one am not doing.

Why are you working so hard to perform apologetics for a transparently bad practice? Why can't you just say "bias is wrong, maybe some of these resolutions are true, maybe none of them are true, but the UN should be above bias and should speak out against all abuses, not just the ones that people try to make it speak out against when they're using the UN as an attack dog?

Apologetics? WTF?

Firstly there are 2 points I want to clarify.

1. I disagree with your claim the UN's only meaningful function is only to promote human rights and world peace and act as an impartial arbiter. Just look at some of the umbrella organisations under it, the WHO, UNHCR, UNICEF etc. I am not sure everyone thinks of health as a human right, but its still a net good. So while I agree that in this case its a bad practice, it doesn't follow that the UN has a negative impact because of what its other arms do. This of course, is just a minor point to the main issue.

2. Its not so much I am defending the bad practice, I am criticising the logic used by the article in the OP, which frankly is the other side of the coin to the bad practice you describe.

Except that it is nakedly obvious when the accusers have an ulterior motive for doing so, when there is a persistent pattern that blind chance does not explain.

As an example from the field of jury selection, suppose that you have eighty juror candidates drawn from a jurisdiction where 50% of the population is African-American. Four of the eighty candidates are African-American. Juror candidates are supposed to be chosen randomly... but the odds of flipping the coin eighty times and having it come up 'tails' only four times are vanishingly low- on the order of one in a quintillion.

Basic common sense tells you there's jury selection bias going on in a situation like that.

At some point, there is just no point in wasting time in apologetics, it becomes totally obvious that a system which is supposed to condemn injustices impartially is in fact being selective, and is only targeting those which it is popular to target, regardless of whether those are the injustices that merit the most time and attention.

And sure, maybe some of the UN panel's accusations are true- but who cares? Given that there is evidence of bias, if I want to know about the state of women's rights in Israel, I cannot ask the UN anymore. Because they have a track record which makes it obvious that there is bias. I'd have to check the UN reports against some other, less biased source anyway... in which case the UN report is redundant, and I might as well check the less biased source directly.

It's like, if you want to know whether someone is at fault in a lawsuit, don't bother asking the lawyer who's paid to sue them. It's a waste of time- you know the lawyer will tell you they're at fault, whether it's true or not. Sometimes it's true- but since you'd have to do your own research anyway because you can't trust the lawyer... why not just cut out the middleman and do the research anyway?

If the UN is willing to be complicit in a process by which nations that have enemies are being hit with disproportionate numbers of UN resolutions raised by those enemies, regardless of the objective merits underlying the resolutions... there is no point paying attention to UN resolutions. Some of the allegations in the resolutions might be true, but it doesn't matter, because they are not a trustworthy source on the question. It's as simple as that.

I have a feeling we agree on most things, but its just a philosophical disagreement on how to look at evidence.

Using your lawyer analogy, its not a matter of ask the lawyer and believe as your above example stated. Its asking the lawyer for the evidence they're going to present to back up their case and making judgments based on that. The lawyer's case stands or falls on the evidence they present. It does not fall because the lawyer is paid to represent a particular side, ie has an ulterior motive. The same with this. In the case of a resolution, I would have to look at the evidence presented to get this resolution passed, as opposed to believing what the resolution said simply because the resolution stated it. The problem I have with the OP article, is that it uses the pseudo logic in the opposite direction, which should also make someone suspicious of it as much as someone is suspicious of the UN human rights council.

Edit - I am going to add that if resolutions were continually passed against a nation with an impeccable human rights record from all the evidence, is not in a military conflict etc we might be able to dismiss it on hand. However in this conflict, no side has their hands clean, so we shouldn't just dismiss if off hand, we should look at the evidence for this particular case.

[Simon_Jester]

So what?

Bluntly, all I'm hearing is a lot of noise about how we shouldn't do a thing. A thing which I for one am not doing.

Why are you working so hard to perform apologetics for a transparently bad practice? Why can't you just say "bias is wrong, maybe some of these resolutions are true, maybe none of them are true, but the UN should be above bias and should speak out against all abuses, not just the ones that people try to make it speak out against when they're using the UN as an attack dog?

Apologetics? WTF?

Apologetics. As in "it doesn't really matter that the UN is being used as an attack dog, their resolutions are still evidence of real problems! You just... can't... trust... the resolutions! That doesn't make them less useful! It's fine!

Firstly there are 2 points I want to clarify.

1. I disagree with your claim the UN's only meaningful function is only to promote human rights and world peace and act as an impartial arbiter. Just look at some of the umbrella organisations under it, the WHO, UNHCR, UNICEF etc. I am not sure everyone thinks of health as a human right, but its still a net good. So while I agree that in this case its a bad practice, it doesn't follow that the UN has a negative impact because of what its other arms do. This of course, is just a minor point to the main issue.

Thing is, the UN's ability to engage in those other activities and support those other organizations has a lot to do with its reputation and impartiality. By being able to say "we don't actually take sides, we just want everyone to be healthy," and be believed, the UN grants the WHO credibility.

Losing the ability to say that, when it has become common knowledge that the UN does take sides, undermines the credibility of everyone who works with or under them.

2. Its not so much I am defending the bad practice, I am criticising the logic used by the article in the OP, which frankly is the other side of the coin to the bad practice you describe.

Could you please identify the exact parts of the article that are using this bad logic?

I have a feeling we agree on most things, but its just a philosophical disagreement on how to look at evidence.

Using your lawyer analogy, its not a matter of ask the lawyer and believe as your above example stated. Its asking the lawyer for the evidence they're going to present to back up their case and making judgments based on that. The lawyer's case stands or falls on the evidence they present. It does not fall because the lawyer is paid to represent a particular side, ie has an ulterior motive. The same with this. In the case of a resolution, I would have to look at the evidence presented to get this resolution passed, as opposed to believing what the resolution said simply because the resolution stated it.

Thing is, in that case, why waste your time with a source you'll have to evaluate independently every time on account of the unreliability of their work?

It's like, suppose you had a dictionary, but many of the words in it were defined incorrectly, so before you could trust that dictionary, you had to cross-reference it with a second dictionary. Why not just use the second dictionary directly?

An institution like the UN and its resolutions on human rights is only valuable to us if it doesn't lie, if we can trust it to identify real problems rather than fictional ones, if when it says X happened, we can trust that X actually happened. Otherwise, we might as well look to other sources to find out what really happened, since we'd have to do that anyway.

The problem I have with the OP article, is that it uses the pseudo logic in the opposite direction, which should also make someone suspicious of it as much as someone is suspicious of the UN human rights council.

Be more precise. What is the logic being used?

Edit - I am going to add that if resolutions were continually passed against a nation with an impeccable human rights record from all the evidence, is not in a military conflict etc we might be able to dismiss it on hand. However in this conflict, no side has their hands clean, so we shouldn't just dismiss if off hand, we should look at the evidence for this particular case.

If we have considerable evidence of bias, why knowingly listen to the biased source? Find another source that won't blindly repeat lies told by someone's enemies.

[mr friendly guy]

Apologetics. As in "it doesn't really matter that the UN is being used as an attack dog, their resolutions are still evidence of real problems! You just... can't... trust... the resolutions! That doesn't make them less useful! It's fine!

Ah I see the confusion now. The UN being used in this way is not fine. I made no mention one or another if its fine or not. I did however attacked the article in the OP for using an appeal to motive fallacy.

Thing is, the UN's ability to engage in those other activities and support those other organizations has a lot to do with its reputation and impartiality. By being able to say "we don't actually take sides, we just want everyone to be healthy," and be believed, the UN grants the WHO credibility.

Losing the ability to say that, when it has become common knowledge that the UN does take sides, undermines the credibility of everyone who works with or under them.

Only in certain fields. However I would contend the UN still does a net good because of these umbrella organisations, and thus it is weak for people (not in this thread per se) to go UN sucks when it makes a decision they disagree with even if the UN is wrong.

Could you please identify the exact parts of the article that are using this bad logic?

Er, I said it in previous reply to you when I quoted parts of the article.

Thing is, in that case, why waste your time with a source you'll have to evaluate independently every time on account of the unreliability of their work?

It's like, suppose you had a dictionary, but many of the words in it were defined incorrectly, so before you could trust that dictionary, you had to cross-reference it with a second dictionary. Why not just use the second dictionary directly?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think if a source is "reliable" enough, we can take its word without going through the evidence presented. Whereas I say, we should ultimately always go through the evidence. Thus the source having a reputation as reliable or unreliable, is less important because ultimately we would have to go through their evidence anyway.

Now because we are all limited by time, if a source is proven unreliable we might ask people to use another source until such time as the unreliable source improves, so I can see where you are coming from. I know I have done it when someone posts the Daily mail links. However it also leads to abuse. For example a source considered reliable (lets say BBC) could slip in some bullshit here and there and thus we might overlook it because of the source's reputation.

An institution like the UN and its resolutions on human rights is only valuable to us if it doesn't lie, if we can trust it to identify real problems rather than fictional ones, if when it says X happened, we can trust that X actually happened. Otherwise, we might as well look to other sources to find out what really happened, since we'd have to do that anyway.

I agree ideally it should. However have you considered that if we apply this high standard, most sources will be considered refuted. For example if the US criticises China or Russia in its human rights report, the latter two could turn around and say, why aren't you criticising yourself for Gitmo and torturing detainees. It doesn't necessarily follow that those criticisms against China or Russia are untrue. It just means we have to look at the evidence the US report presented, which ultimately we would have to do anyway. But if you automatically consider the source refuted, what is the incentive to check the evidence they provide to bolster their case? I would argue none.

Edit - I will add that when an article as per the OP goes UN bias against Israel, it actively discourages readers to even look and see if these allegations occur from another source and the evidence they provided.

]Be more precise. What is the logic being used?

Appeal to motive fallacy. Or in other words, UN is being biased therefore all allegations against Israel are false (as I quoted in a previous reply to you). All allegations could be false, but it isn't because someone is bias, because a bias person could still be correct.

If we have considerable evidence of bias, why knowingly listen to the biased source? Find another source that won't blindly repeat lies told by someone's enemies.

You seem to misunderstand. Maybe its my explanation. But its not so much I listen to this source, I ask the source to present its evidence (back to the original source). I don't dismiss the source (and don't confirm it either) without looking at the evidence, just because allegations of bias abound. Now I would apply this more rigorously to the source the first time. If I do this and find it consistently than not is inaccurate, I can understand why you would not bother the next time and just ask for another source.

However, what happens if its the first time you've come across the source. The news article claiming its inaccurate should at least show where the evidence is poor, rather than state source bias, because someone could be coming across UN sources on Israel for the first time would rightly say, you haven't provided any justification for your position.

[Grumman]

It's like, suppose you had a dictionary, but many of the words in it were defined incorrectly, so before you could trust that dictionary, you had to cross-reference it with a second dictionary. Why not just use the second dictionary directly?

Because you want to use the first dictionary and its terrible definitions to win online arguments. That's how Merriam-Webster seems to work, at least.

[Simon_Jester]

If I used a dictionary I knew was unreliable in an attempt to win arguments I'd feel like a rotten liar.

Now I'm going to feel the same way using UN resolutions.

[His Divine Shadow]

According to the United Nations, the most evil country in the world today is Israel.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/ ... lator.html

Where's the news?

[K. A. Pital]

I surely see how my post could be seen as controversial by others, but I don't post here just so that people feel good about themselves or agree with me. They are free to disagree.

Instead, I'd like them to think for a second. Regimes like Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe, although one is rich and the other very poor, exhibit the same deeply traditionalist reluctance to change anything. Spending effort in banging against a rock is useless. It is the same with the DPRK - the human rights criticism of this nation is absolutely valid and yet almost totally useless. How important is it to condemn them every X years when there is literally zero effect from all the condemnations?

So yes, you can waste your time on Saudis and North Korea, shouting that they are very bad (and they are indeed), but once you have firmly cemented the fact that they are shit countries in the public opinion of your own nations, there is little to be gained by further condemnations.

[eyl]

I surely see how my post could be seen as controversial by others, but I don't post here just so that people feel good about themselves or agree with me. They are free to disagree.

Instead, I'd like them to think for a second. Regimes like Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe, although one is rich and the other very poor, exhibit the same deeply traditionalist reluctance to change anything. Spending effort in banging against a rock is useless. It is the same with the DPRK - the human rights criticism of this nation is absolutely valid and yet almost totally useless. How important is it to condemn them every X years when there is literally zero effect from all the condemnations?

So yes, you can waste your time on Saudis and North Korea, shouting that they are very bad (and they are indeed), but once you have firmly cemented the fact that they are shit countries in the public opinion of your own nations, there is little to be gained by further condemnations.

1) The various UN assemblies are composed of representatives of the countries. Saudi Arabia and countries with similiar records are among those doing the condemning, here.

2) Even if we were to assume that all the UN's criticism of Israel is valid, the blatant lack of evenhandedness is such that it's lost all credbility as far as Israel is concerned. To the extent that the local news often barely bothers to report on them beyond the fact that they happened. That UNESCO resolution I mentioned above? Judging by a thread on another forum I participate in, Jews in the US were very concerned about it. In Israel, we were a lot more concerned about the weather (granted, there was a major storm that week, but still). The UN's conduct has largely negated its ability to influence Israel, both the government and the public.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, in that case it is a pity, but still does not indicate to me that the UN did something wrong.

Saudi Arabia should be kicked out of any bodies that have to do with "human rights", but you probably know that on this board few people hate the KSA as much as I do.