"The committee members are institutionally biased towards producing the findings that the committee wants to hear."

So does that hold good for UN HRC and UNRWA Shaw? Both noted for their anti-Israeli bias? I know how much you believe in there being one sauce for the goose and another for the gander.

Another fly in the ointment as far as your statement goes of course is that those people mentioned who actually undertook the fact finding missions were not members of either UN HRC or UN Watch, so I would be delighted to hear from you exactly how they could possibly be described as being institutionally biased.

Now if you were called upon to put a team together to monitor, examine and analyse the conduct of a military operation who would you select? We know that your pal Jom in his wisdom would pick milkmen and paperboys, dying to hear who you would pick.

Desmond Travers (Colonel Irish Army retired) the UN HRC Team's one and only military expert made mistake after mistake and started out on the assumption that Israel was guilty. One independent military expert (Tim Collins Colonel Irish Rangers retired) who looked into a claim that a mosque had been used to store weapons (A claim that Travers dismissed out of hand) had nothing to do with UN Watch or their team of experts, read accounts of the strike that hit the mosque and the eye-witness accounts of those who observed it and then went to the site and examined it where he found obvious signs of sympathetic secondary explosions inside the building. Now then Shaw if the Israelis only struck the building once - you tell me what caused the secondary explosions? As I know you will not offer up any response to that question I will tell you. For there to have been secondary explosions there would have to be munitions or explosives stored inside the building when it as hit.