Talk:Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights
|
|
I checked out their website, and it's heavy on rhetoric while light on documentation. I would not consider it a reliable "source" for anything except its own point of view. --Ed Poor
As an interesting sideline, it was a week after the US refused to attend a WCAR conference (which was focused on attacking Israel) that bin Laden's conducted the 9-11 attack. Coincidence? --Ed Poor
- However, many neutral observers welcome the organisation's determination to further the cause of Palestinians by the use of legal action rather than violence.
Above sentence sounds propagandistic. Who are these "neutral observers"? Can neutral observers "welcome" the furthering of a cause and remain neutral? I'd like the sentence better if it said something like Brothers in Peace, an organiziation that takes no sides in any controversy, praised LAW's refusal to use violence. (I made up "Brothers in Peace"). Please fix the sentence and put it back in. --Ed Poor
- but some Israelis accuse the group of selectively ignoring alleged crimes committed by the Palestinian Authority and presenting a unilateral position of a propagandist nature
Similar comments to Ed's, above - this sounds like propaganda. Can those "some Israelis" and their views on LAW be sourced?