Amnesty International Does Detail Analysis of Gaza War

Everyone that has studied this fairly has come to the conclusion that Israel has probably committed genocide in Gaza. It is very sad but true. I blame this on the horrible Netanyahu and his radical far right-wing animals that make up the rest of his government. They are probably almost all Islamophobic. I suspect they want to simply just destroy the Palestinian people and take their land.

Amnesty International says there is ‘sufficient evidence’ to accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza
quote:
The 296-page report details evidence gathered over nine months, outlining numerous instances in which Amnesty says Israeli forces and government authorities have committed three of five acts prohibited under the United Nations’ Genocide Convention – including the mass killing of Palestinian civilians, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life “calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part.”

“Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating its intent to physically destroy them,” Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard said in a statement.

Amnesty said that Israel is responsible for extensive and often indiscriminate aerial and ground attacks, widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, the forced mass displacement of Palestinians across the besieged enclave, and the obstruction of humanitarian aid.

“There is only one reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence presented: genocidal intent has been part and parcel of Israel’s conduct in Gaza since 7 October 2023, including its military campaign,” Amnesty’s report states.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/world/amnesty-international-israel-genocide-gaza-intl/index.html

 

---
Bill, do you know which sources of information the AI used for their report?
Access to Gaza strictly inforced by IDF.
I read the article but haven’t seen the report itself. While the accusations are serious, I’m skeptical about the source being GHM or similar, which is widely regarded as biased and deceptive, used for information warfare by Hamas.
I’ll try to obtain the report and examine the sources myself. Additionally, I’m confident Israel will provide more accurate and reliable information in response.

NGO Monitor on AI:
"Amnesty International is among the most active NGOs that systematically promote demonization of Israel , BDS, and antisemitism – under the facade of universal human rights. In recent years, this bias and discrimination has been reflected in its “apartheid” campaign, extensive efforts to exclude antisemitism as a human rights concern, and undermining the implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition to combat hatred of Jews. "
---

 

Sufficient? How about overwhelming evidence of a long term plan for both Gaza and the West Bank.

 

Agreed, I saw this same topic article on 4 or 5 different sources. CNN had the "kindest" title by far. Kindest from the Israeli perspective. The article is very damning though.

 

I looked up sources to try and support your assertions. Wikipedia has a super detailed article on AI. Amnesty International is based in UK and has been around serving the good of humanity for over 63 years. Wikipedia's article is over 30/35 pages long. Has around 241 reliable sources referenced for the article. It says some damning things about AI. Things like poor press from AI leadership saying or doing awkward, unseemly or wrong things. There's even a section just on Israel. What it says seems reasonable though. I couldn't find anything there that really supports your assertions or implications though. I didn't read the article cover to cover though, maybe I missed it?
Amnesty International
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International

I'm looking forward to seeing Israel's response to all this horrible mess that Netanyahu has gotten them into. I note that there is a whole lot more for them to deal with than just AI. Practically all organizations like Amnesty International serving the good of humanity in general have said similar things about Israel's behavior in Gaza.

 

AI came under fire many times for its demonizing of Israel. This is not new.

Critics have slammed a new Amnesty International report that claims Israel "has committed, and is continuing to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza as poorly researched and highly politicized.

Taking issue with the report, Orde Kittrie, a law professor at Arizona State University, said Israeli "policies and actions do not fit the legal definition of genocide."

Kittrie, who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told that "accusers must prove Israel is killing Gaza civilians intentionally and simply because they are Palestinian rather than as an unfortunate consequence of Israeli self-defense against Hamas and its fighters."
He noted that "Israel’s warnings and other steps to mitigate harm to Gazan civilians make clear Israel’s intent is not genocide but, far from it, to minimize civilian casualties while lawfully exercising Israel’s rights to free hostages, apprehend October 7 atrocity perpetrators, and protect Israel’s population from further attacks."

Amnesty International’s bias:
David Adesnik, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies charged that Amnesty International has never characterized the ongoing atrocities in Sudan and Ukraine or ethnic predation in Xinjiang as genocide, despite these being "cases where they’re sometimes far bloodier and where the racial or ethnic motive was often crystal clear." Adesnik says using that "term against Israel suggests a real double standard."

Amnesty International’s report alleges "denial and obstruction of the delivery of essential services, humanitarian assistance and other life-saving supplies into and within Gaza" by Israel. But as Adesnik stated, Amnesty International fails to "acknowledge the 58,000 aid trucks, and over 1,149,000 tons of aid that have come in." Amnesty International also neglects to address how the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has continually measured declining #s of Gazans facing catastrophic food insecurity. In regard to its treatment of aid, "it’s not even close to being a balanced assessment," Adesnik concluded.

Salo Aizenberg, director of media watchdog group HonestReporting, said "claims against Israel misrepresent and cherry-pick statements by Israeli leaders – because the intent to genocide is simply nonexistent." As an example, Aizenberg noted that the International Court of Justice’s case against Israel "grossly misrepresented" the words of Israeli President Isaac Herzog.
Herzog himself criticized the ICJ’s case, explaining that he was "disgusted by the way they twisted my words, using very, very partial and fragmented quotes," the Times of Israel reported.

When inquired about whether Amnesty International would condemn Hamas’ use of medical facilities and civilian structures, and whether the organization considered conflict in Sudan and Ukraine or ethnic predation in Xinjiang and Afghanistan to constitute genocide. Amnesty International did not respond.

 

It took them long enough.

 

Lerner, your post is just statements by a no name fellow on the Internet, at least I assume that Lerner is not really your name. Without referencing sources (which I admit is not your common style) the statements carry no weight with me.

Bad mouthing AI because there are other bad things happening in the world is a weak argument. Also bad mouthing AI because Israel has done other bad things like stealing land from Palestinians also seems like a weak argument.

 

Bill, I read your post and here is one person who has a different opinion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Kittrie
https://brandeiscenter.com/professor-order-kittrie-debunks-the-charge-that-israel-is-an-apartheid-nation-and-sounds-the-alarm-on-a-newly-established-un-commission/

Yesterday he responded on this topic and I provided his opinion,

You can find it easily on Google from credible sources.
And all the other info I posted,
AI is biased against Israel, It's been like this for a long time.
NGO watch group following this bias against Israel and published their findings.

 

For a country established, in part, because of a religion being subjected to genocide, it's kind of sad to see that same country engaged in it. So much for the high road.

 

Thank you for providing context to your previous post.

 

My take on it is that religious zealots are running the government and they're convinced that their religion justifies the genocide and other horrible things that they have been doing to their fellow human beings. They don't really care what the UN says, what the International Criminal Court says, what organizations like Amnesty International say, or what other countries say. They don't even care what the USA says as long as we keep the weapons and bombs flowing to them. They only care about what they believe God is telling them to do.

 

I respectfully disagree with your perspective and would like to offer an alternative view. The principle of 'love thy neighbor as thyself' applies universally, both to Jews and non-Jews alike. However, history has shown that many Arabs, both in Palestine and beyond, have not accepted the idea of a Jewish state or independent Jewish society. The rejection of land partitioning is a clear example of this.
In my humble opinion, this leads to a mischaracterization of the parties involved. I am confident in saying that if hostilities from the Arab side were to cease, there would be no aggression from the right-wing or ultra-right Israelis. Peaceful coexistence is possible, but it requires genuine willingness from all sides to end hostilities.

 

I agree that part of the equation leading to the decision wanting genocide on the Palestinians is the fact, especially with the right-wing, is the Palestinian antisemitic beliefs.

 

Israel has been operating an apartheid since it seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza. Instead of a one- or two-state solution, they seem to be opting to make permanent their third way.

 

For what side? They are an NGO that support human rights.

What is the legal definition? Whose law? The UN? South Africa? Who? The is no universal “law”. The link just goes to another brain-dead Fox News article.

So someone warns someone they will kill them then it isnt genocide? If Hitler told the Jews right before he would kill them then it wouldn’t have been genocide? What an absurd defense.

This is just Whataboutism. They are an NGO with a limited budget. If he wants them to investigate more then he should fund them more.

The Nazis fed the Jew in Auschwitz. Also, didn’t Israel block lots of aid and blow up some aid workers?

But this case does not rely solely on words. The actions are clear. Even if his words were ignored the truth behind the report still stands.

They have condemned it many times already. This is just deflection.

What a disaster of an article by Fox News. It tries to deflect and use logical fallacies to redirect from the substance of the article.

 

---
Israel has made significant concessions in the past in an effort to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state. Notably, during the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, under the mediation of U.S. President Bill Clinton, offered Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat a deal that included the establishment of a Palestinian state in nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem serving as the capital of that state.
This proposal included the return of substantial territory, as well as sovereignty over key areas, which represented a significant shift from Israel's previous policies. The deal also envisioned the dismantling of Israeli settlements in these territories. Despite this, Arafat rejected the offer, citing concerns over the specifics of the deal, particularly the issue of Jerusalem, refugees, and security arrangements.
The rejection of the Camp David offer led to a missed opportunity for peace, and soon after, the Second Intifada (2000-2005) erupted, marked by increased violence and a breakdown of negotiations.
This moment in history underscores the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has, on multiple occasions, shown a willingness to make territorial concessions in exchange for peace. However, the failure to reach an agreement, especially after such significant offers, has left many questions unanswered and deepened the distrust between both sides.
Israel left Gaza and got Oct 7th and terrorist state in Gaza.

---

 

---
Why is there so little focus on the role of Arab leaders like Hafez al-Assad in the suffering of Palestinians? For decades, Assad's regime in Syria and other Arab states used the Palestinian cause as a political tool, while doing little to improve the lives of Palestinians in their own territories. In fact, Assad and others often prioritized their own geopolitical goals over the welfare of the Palestinian people, using them as pawns in regional power struggles.
Moreover, why is there so little attention given to the fact that Gaza has become a stronghold for terrorist groups like Hamas, which uses civilian infrastructure—hospitals, schools, homes— for military purposes? These facilities are often turned into weapons caches, rocket launch sites, and staging grounds for attacks on Israeli civilians. This deliberate use of human shields and the weaponization of civilian areas is a violation of international law and makes it extremely difficult for Israel to defend itself without risking civilian casualties.
The root cause of the ongoing conflict is not simply territorial disputes, but the rise of radical militant groups like Hamas, who took control of Gaza in 2007 and have since pursued an agenda of violence and extremism, refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Hamas' charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, and their actions on the ground continue to fuel the cycle of violence.
The narrative on many campuses and in mainstream media often ignores these realities, spreading a one-sided view that demonizes Israel while downplaying the actions of those responsible for perpetuating the violence in Gaza. It's crucial to acknowledge the complexities of this conflict and the role of both external actors and terrorist organizations in shaping the current situation.
The true cause of the war is not simply territorial disputes, but the radical ideologies and terrorist tactics used by Hamas, who have hijacked the Palestinian cause and continue to hold the civilian population of Gaza hostage.

All I see is anti Israel posts, nothing about Sudan or bombings of Kurdish by Trurks, etc.

---

 

That does nothing to detract from Rich's point. "Israel has been operating an apartheid since it seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza. Instead of a one- or two-state solution, they seem to be opting to make permanent their third way." I'll just add that their third way seems to be stealing land from the Palestinians and more recently genocide in Gaza.

While this is all true it is just mostly irrelevant what-about-ism. The fact remains. That does nothing to detract from Rich's point. "Israel has been operating an apartheid since it seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza. Instead of a one- or two-state solution, they seem to be opting to make permanent their third way." I'll just add that their third way seems to be stealing land from the Palestinians and more recently genocide in Gaza.

 

The accusation that Israel operates an apartheid system in the West Bank and Gaza is a topic of significant debate, and there are a few key points that are often made to challenge or contextualize this claim. Here’s a breakdown of arguments that counter the accusation:
1. Legal and Political Framework
Definition of Apartheid: The term "apartheid" originally refers to the system of racial segregation and discrimination implemented by South Africa's government from 1948 to 1994. The United Nations defines apartheid as inhuman acts committed to establishing and maintaining a racial group's domination over any other group and systematically oppressing them. Critics argue that Israel's policies in the West Bank, Gaza, and within Israel itself fit this definition, but Israel and its supporters often contest this comparison on the grounds that the context, nature, and legal structures in the territories are different.
Israeli Law and Citizenship: Unlike apartheid South Africa, Palestinians in Israel proper (pre-1967 borders) have full citizenship rights, including the right to vote, run for office, and access the legal system. More than 20% of Israel's population are Arab citizens, who live under Israeli laws, vote in elections, and are represented in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament). While critics point to systemic inequality within Israel, they do not face the same level of overt discrimination as under apartheid.
2. Gaza and the West Bank are not Part of Israel
Different Administrative Regions: The West Bank and Gaza Strip are territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War, but Israel does not officially annex them. The governance and legal systems in these territories are different from Israel proper. The West Bank is divided into Areas A, B, and C under the Oslo Accords( Which appear to be dead now), with varying degrees of Palestinian Authority and Israeli control. Gaza, since Israel's withdrawal in 2005, is governed by Hamas.
Gaza Blockade: Israel justifies its blockade of Gaza as a security measure in response to Hamas rocket attacks, claiming it is necessary to prevent the smuggling of weapons and to limit the group’s military capabilities. Critics argue that the blockade is a form of collective punishment, but Israel maintains that it is in response to security threats, not racial discrimination.
3. Security and Military Occupation
Security Context: Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza is often framed as a response to security concerns. Israeli supporters argue that the country’s military presence is a necessary measure for its security, given the history of attacks on Israeli civilians by groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Palestinian Authority. The security measures, such as checkpoints, the separation barrier, and restrictions on movement, are seen by some as a practical response to security threats rather than part of an apartheid-like strategy of domination.
Terrorism and Violence: Israel points out that the territories are home to multiple militant groups that have engaged in acts of terrorism, including suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and other violence aimed at civilians. In this context, some argue that Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza should be seen as part of counterterrorism efforts rather than an effort to enforce racial segregation.
4. Palestinian Self-Determination and Governance
Palestinian Authority and Hamas: Critics of the apartheid claim often point to the fact that the Palestinians in the West Bank have their own government (the Palestinian Authority), which administers many aspects of civilian life, and in Gaza, Hamas governs. While Israel controls borders and security to varying degrees, Palestinians have their own political entities and have the ability to make political decisions. Some argue that this means the situation is more about an unresolved conflict between two peoples with competing territorial and political claims, rather than an imposed racial system of domination.
5. Legal Distinctions and Separate Systems
Differing Legal Systems: In the West Bank, Israeli settlers live under Israeli civil law, while Palestinians live under military law, a situation which critics point to as evidence of apartheid. However, supporters of Israel argue that this distinction is not based on racial discrimination but on the fact that Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians are living in different political and legal systems due to the ongoing conflict. The military laws are seen as necessary due to security risks posed by Palestinians who may support or participate in armed resistance.
6. International Perspectives
Differing International Opinions: Not all international bodies or organizations agree with the comparison to apartheid. The United Nations, in particular, has condemned Israeli policies in the occupied territories but has not universally defined it as apartheid. In contrast, several NGOs and human rights organizations (including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) have labeled Israeli practices as apartheid, citing systemic discrimination and restrictions. However, many Western governments, including the United States and European Union, have refrained from adopting this label, recognizing the complexity of the situation.
7. Alternative Solutions and Paths to Peace
Two-State Solution: Israel’s position often emphasizes a desire for a two-state solution, where Israel and a future Palestinian state would coexist. The accusations of apartheid, from this perspective, are seen as less relevant to the larger issue of achieving peace, which many Israelis believe can only be done through negotiations and mutual recognition, rather than through unilateral actions or labeling.
Peace Efforts: Israel points to its past peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan as evidence that it is willing to pursue peace with its neighbors. The accusation of apartheid is often seen as counterproductive by those who believe that peace will only come through dialogue, compromise, and the resolution of territorial disputes.
Conclusion
While there are certainly criticisms of Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza, many argue that these criticisms should be understood in the context of a longstanding and deeply complex political conflict rather than an accusation of apartheid. Israel’s supporters contend that its policies are largely driven by security concerns and the realities of an ongoing territorial dispute, rather than a system of racial segregation or oppression as seen under apartheid in South Africa.