Vidan's comment:

"There is an expectation of Israel and other democratic states to abide by a higher standard than Sudan. I would suggest NGO Monitor address the content of documents, rather than count their words. That way they will be able sympathize with the suffering of non-Jews," Vidan said.

How is this not straight up racism?

I have looked for some pronouncement from AI on the current fighting in Lebanon but found nil. Arab on Arab murderous violence does not outrage them. Maybe because they believe Arabs are biologically wired to be violent and therefore deserve a special waiver? It's called the bigotry of low expectations. And indeed it is racism, which Edward Said named "orientalism"...

Charles at LGF blogged about this too, and he noted that Dan Gillerman made the excellent point that Muslims killing other Muslims seems to bother absolutely no one. If Christians kill Muslims, it's a Crusade. If Jews kill Muslims, it's a War Crime. This, on the other hand, is nothing.

"That way they will be able to sympathize with the suffering of non-Jews"

That fing sniveling little fing weasel.... they're murdering hundreds of thousands of black Muslims in Africa and every Arab regime is against any action helping them... and this fing weasel freudian or purposefully slips in his condescending arrogance....

Man would I love to meet this worthless prick...

Andre Glucksmann calls this double standard "The Jerusalem syndrome":

http://www.signandsight.com/features/894.html

"The outrage of so many outraged people outrages me. On the scales of world opinion, some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes."

How paternalistic and racist . . . apparently the regimes that habitually violate human rights are excused because they don't know any better????

And somehow it is supposed to be sympathetic to do nothing - and to focus on scathingly criticizing regimes that AI (at least this spokesperson) BELIEVES already have far better records????

“I would suggest NGO Monitor address the content of documents, rather than count their words. That way they will be able sympathize with the suffering of non-Jews," Vidan said.”

Clearly, what Vidan is saying here is that he either thinks that Jews have had far more than their share of sympathy already and don’t require any more or that Jews are for some reason intrinsically unworthy of sympathy.

What’s more he seems to be implying that the NGO Monitor study lacks the proper amount and distribution of sympathy. That’s odd because the Amnesty International mission statement doesn’t mention anything about sympathy allocation being part of the job. Here is the mission, right off the web page http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng :

Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.

AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

In pursuit of this vision, AI’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.

See that? Not a single mention of telling the world for whom it should have sympathy. Perhaps Mr. Vidan thinks that Amnesty International should change its name to Sympathy International and spend its time telling us who to feel sorry for and why.

Of course readers of Breath of the Beast will not be surprised that a highly placed Director in AI should betray such a blatantly subjective, hysterically emotional bias. We’ve discussed the underlying kitsch, emotion and Agélastic bathos that dominates the left http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2007/04/emergence-of-aglaste-left.html

Dozens of Palestinians have died lately from civil conflict in Gaza and the battles in Lebanon.

One woman, quoted in BBC, declares that a "massacre" has taken place in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp - there's even a reference to Sabra and Shatilla - children have been without food and water, a UN aid convoy came under fire, thousands have fled.

The net result among groups and parties who vocally protest when Israel is guilty of harming Palestinians?

Silence.

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/05/22/silence.php

The "reasoning" behind holding Israel to a higher standard than (say) Sudan would be comical for its circularity were it not for its deadly-serious myopia. In essence, they are saying: we'll use the God of Israel to condemn Israel when it suits us but if someone else chooses to abide by no 'god' other than their own hatred, then that's OK for them. In other words: moral relativism. Since it's being taught in our schools and our culture, it's little surprise that that dry rot is also reflected in our media.

"That way they will be able to sympathize with the suffering of non-Jews"

The person who uttered this phrase should not be directing the activities of an NGO in Israel regardless of its political bias. Vidan and Amnesty must be held to task. This blatant bias is simply unacceptable.