RSS
Amnesty International Attacks Israel — and the Consequences Are Striking
Illustration with the logo of Amnesty International on the vest of an observer of a demonstration in Paris, France, Paris, on Dec. 11, 2021. Photo: Xose Bouzas / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect
Amnesty International, a global organization that claims to have the support of seven million people, has long been regarded as a leading voice for human rights; however, its track record on Israel raises concerns about a pattern of selective outrage and disproportionate criticism. From allegations of “apartheid,” to calls for international arms embargoes, Amnesty’s focus on Israel stands out as uniquely severe — raising critical questions about the organization’s impartiality and fairness in addressing complex geopolitical conflicts.
Amnesty’s reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often highlight alleged Israeli war crimes, while providing limited context or acknowledgment of provocations by terrorist groups like Hamas. Following the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks in which over 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals were killed and hundreds taken hostage, Amnesty concentrated much of its reporting on Israel’s military response in Gaza.
Amnesty’s focus on civilian casualties caused by Israeli airstrikes ignores the reality that Hamas embeds its military operations within densely populated civilian areas — an act that itself constitutes a war crime under international law.
While Amnesty has condemned Hamas for actions like indiscriminate rocket attacks, the majority of its criticism frequently revolves around framing Israel as the primary aggressor. Amnesty’s false and selective reporting fuels bigoted accusations towards Israel and undermines the organization’s credibility as a neutral facilitator of human rights.
In 2022, Amnesty released a report accusing Israel of practicing apartheid — a term historically associated with South Africa’s racial segregation regime. The organization applied the label to Israeli policies in the West Bank, Gaza, and within Israel’s borders. However, the apartheid accusation grossly oversimplifies the situation, ignoring the complex security measures Israel is forced to implement as a result of constant terrorism.
In Israel, there literally cannot be apartheid — as Arabs and Jews have equal rights under the law, serve in all the same functions of society (including on the Supreme Court, in the Knesset, and in the IDF), and Arabs are granted equal protection under the law.
Furthermore, Israel does not have any control of the West Bank; it is administered by the Palestinian Authority. And until October 7, 2023, Hamas unilaterally ran Gaza. So the charge of apartheid is also legally impossible in both of these places.
Legal scholars and human rights experts have criticized the report for blending counter-terrorism efforts with systemic oppression, a comparison that is blatantly inflammatory and misleading. Anti-Israel campaigns worldwide now use Amnesty’s apartheid claim as a weapon to justify their calls for boycotts of and divestment from Israel.
Aside from all the times it is misleading or factually incorrect, Amnesty’s criticism of Israel fails to provide context. Reports on Israeli airstrikes in Gaza often omit the challenges of targeting terrorist infrastructure embedded within civilian areas. It also ignores the fact that despite Israel giving ample warning for Palestinians to flee targeted areas before an attack or an Israeli anti-terrorist campaign, Hamas urges them to stay.
During and around October 7, Hamas fired over 5,000 rockets into Israeli cities, often from civilian locations like schools and hospitals. Yet, Amnesty’s reports focus on the Israeli response, failing to account for misfired Hamas rockets that caused significant casualties among Palestinian civilians.
Despite the United Nations’ findings that Hamas has used human shields — putting Palestinian civilians at risk during military engagements — Amnesty has neither condemned nor acknowledged this practice. At the same time, the organization was highly outspoken in denouncing Israel’s military response to Hamas’s Oct. 7th attacks, which resulted in the highest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust.
The bigotry of Amnesty International is a direct reflection of its leadership. Agnes Callamard, Secretary-General of Amnesty International, has promoted false narratives, including a claim that former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres admitted to Israel’s role in the assassination of Yasser Arafat — one that Peres never made. Despite being exposed, Callamard refused to retract the false statement.
During her time as UN Special Rapporteur, she defended violent riots against Israel, including Hamas’ 2018 attempts to breach the Gaza-Israel border, calling it a legitimate exercise of free speech, despite clear evidence of violence.
She has also opposed Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, claiming the distinction between citizenship and nationality based on race is mind-boggling. Callamard’s stance reflects a deep-rooted bias against Israel in the Amnesty organization.
Recently, Amnesty joined over 250 organizations advocating for a global arms embargo on Israel, citing alleged violations of international humanitarian law. However, such measures ignore the realities of the conflict, where Israel must defend its citizens against a terrorist organization that prioritizes military objectives over civilian safety.
The influence of Amnesty International extends into university campuses, where student organizations often amplify its reports. Many universities in the US and Europe host events and fund programs aligned with Amnesty’s positions, contributing to a growing wave of anti-Israel sentiment among younger generations. As a result of Amnesty’s lies, college campuses are now polarized environments where Jewish and pro-Israel students frequently face unsafe situations — and the truth is being distorted for uninformed students.
Amnesty International’s disproportionate focus on Israel, coupled with its inflammatory rhetoric and selective reporting, undermines its mission to uphold universal human rights standards. By consistently framing Israel as a villain while neglecting the broader context of the conflict, Amnesty risks encouraging tension rather than fostering resolution.
For Israel, the stakes are not just reputational. Amnesty consistently shapes international opinion, drives policy decisions, and encourages campaigns that seek to isolate Israel diplomatically and economically. To ensure fair and effective advocacy, it is essential to hold organizations like Amnesty accountable for their biases, and demand balanced, context-rich reporting on one of the world’s most enduring conflicts.
Gregory Lyakhov has written for The Times of Israel, and is a passionate advocate for Israel. He runs a political blog focusing on elections, law, and Israel.
The post Amnesty International Attacks Israel — and the Consequences Are Striking first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) defended Israel’s decision to pause aid deliveries into the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, pointing out that the United States did not provide humanitarian assistance to Nazi Germany during World War II.
“We didn’t provide aid to Nazi Germany during World War II. The idea is preposterous. Why should Israel be forced to provide aid to Hamas-run Gaza?” Cotton posted on X/Twitter on Sunday night.
The White House also expressed support for Israel’s decision.
“Israel has negotiated in good faith since the beginning of this administration to ensure the release of hostages held captive by Hamas terrorists,” National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement. “We will support their decision on next steps given Hamas had indicated it’s no longer interested in a negotiated ceasefire.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced earlier in the day that Israel would block humanitarian aid transfers into Gaza.
Netanyahu’s announcement came after his government presented the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas with a proposal for a six-week extension of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The proposal would mandate that Hamas release half of the remaining Israeli hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza at the beginning of the extension. The rest of the hostages would be released at the end, if Hamas and Israel can agree on a permanent ceasefire deal. Israel would retain the right to restart the war in Gaza if negotiations are unsuccessful by the 42-day mark.
According to Jerusalem, the ceasefire extension proposal was the brainchild of US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Hamas has refused to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, claiming that the Jewish state has violated the terms of the original agreement.
The Netanyahu government reportedly believes that pausing aid transfers into Gaza will pressure Hamas into accepting the ceasefire extension. Hamas, which started the Gaza war when it killed 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages during its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of southern Israel, dismissed Israel’s decision on Sunday as “cheap blackmail.”
“Unfortunately, Hamas rejected the proposal. As the first phase of the framework has ended, we have halted the entry of trucks into Gaza,” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said in a statement.
Israel’s decision to block aid deliveries into Gaza was met with widespread backlash, with some observers accusing Jerusalem of committing “genocidal acts” and violating “international law.”
However, others have pointed out that over the past few months, Gaza has experienced a surge of humanitarian aid.
“In the last six weeks, Israel has flooded Hamas Gaza with 25,000 trucks of aid,” noted former Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy. “The enemy territory whose government is committed to permanent jihad against Israel is amply stocked for months.”
Cotton, the chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has staunchly defended Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza. In October 2024, Cotton wrote a letter to then-US President Joe Biden, condemning his administration for threatening an “arms embargo” against Israel.
In December 2024, Cotton introduced legislation to mandate the US federal government refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” — terminology preferred by Israel. Cotton has also lambasted the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for allegedly diverting funds intended for humanitarian aid into the hands of the Hamas terrorist group.
The post ‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal
Trucks carrying aid move, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hussam Al-Masri
In what may be perhaps the most significant single strategic move since the start of the war in Gaza, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced this weekend that, “the entry of all goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will be halted.”
Contrary to claims of “war crimes” and “starving civilians,” this new approach to Gaza is not only completely consistent with international law — but is likely to save civilian lives on all sides and bring the war to a close far more quickly than any other approach.
The massacre of October 7, 2023, saw the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. The internationally-designated Hamas terror organization, along with Palestinian civilians and UN staff, invaded Israel, killed over 1,200, took 251 hostage, committed mass torture and mass rape, and brought about 16 months of war.
As I wrote the other day, Israel and Hamas completed “Phase 1” of a three stage ceasefire agreement, which resulted in the release of some of the Israeli hostages. However, the parties have so far failed to negotiate the terms of “Phase 2.” US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, presented a framework for continuing negotiations, which Israel accepted but Hamas rejected.
In response, Israel made this weekend’s announcement, and closed Gaza to aid deliveries.
Israel maintains a legal weapons blockade on Gaza, which is governed by the Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions, and the San Remo Convention. Under these agreements, a legal blockade is permitted as a defense against armed attack. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which began in 2007, fits this requirement, as it is a response to Hamas’s ongoing rocket barrages on Israeli civilians.
Under these same international rules, the blockading party may not intentionally starve civilians as a tool of warfare. This effectively means that the blockading power is required to transfer humanitarian aid into the blockaded area — a requirement that Israel has fulfilled at a massive scale.
However, the aid that enters into Gaza is typically not transferred to civilians. To the contrary, Hamas, habitually steals international aid, as well as torturing and killing civilians who attempt to take the aid for themselves.
This reality has been confirmed by multiple international sources including the United Nations, and has been caught on camera numerous times.
Hamas uses stolen aid supplies to fuel its rockets, equip its troops, and sells some of what’s left to civilians as a way of raising funds for its war effort. Indeed, many of the resources Hamas used on October 7, and in the months since, were taken from aid supplies, including the tunnels where Israeli hostages are currently held, which were built with cement funded by America’s USAID agency.
In effect, Israel has been fighting a war of survival while also funding both sides: a strategy doomed to fail. This kind of national suicide is absolutely not required by international law.
To the contrary, Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV specifically states that a power is not required to allow the passage of humanitarian aid unless it is satisfied that the aid will not be diverted to enemy combatants. Therefore, not only is Israel not required to transfer aid under the present circumstances, but pressuring Israel to do so is, in itself, a war crime.
International law is structured this way for good reason: funding both sides of a conflict only serves to prolong hostilities and thus increase completely avoidable harm to civilian populations on all sides.
In this case, aid to Gaza ends up almost exclusively in the hands of an internationally -designated terror organization that is also an enemy combatant. The international community has had 18 years since the beginning of the blockade in 2007, and 16 months since the October 7 massacre, to find a solution to this particular war crime, yet has both failed and refused to do so. The consequence has been to prolong the current war, the captivity of the Israeli hostages, and also war’s deleterious impact on the lives of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
For the moment, this war crime of compelling Israel to provide aid to enemy combatants, in violation of Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV, has come to an end. This can only result in a quicker defeat of Hamas, and a quicker end to the current war. Such a result will, in turn, provide immeasurable benefits to Israelis, to Palestinians, and to the entire world at large.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pro-Palestinian Activists Blame Bibas Children for Their Own Murders
Kfir Bibas. Photo: Hostages and Missing Families Forum.
The confirmation of the murders of the red-haired Bibas boys was a gut punch for Israelis. For some pro-Palestinian activists, it was an opportunity to blame the victims.
Last Tuesday, the South African-based Gift of the Givers, the self-described “largest disaster response, non-governmental organisation (NGO) of African origin on the African continent,” decided to share a short video justifying the kidnapping of Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir and blaming Israel for their deaths.
It was bizarre for a supposed human rights organization to share this pro-Hamas propaganda. Some of this mystery can be explained by Gift of the Givers’ alleged membership in a Hamas funding network. The United States sanctioned the charity umbrella group Union of Good in 2008 for funding Hamas. The union’s website in the early 2000s listed Gift of the Givers as a South African-based member.
The South African government’s anti-Israel hostility may also help explain why Gift of the Givers felt comfortable sharing the victim-blaming material. The South African government has been one of Israel’s most vocal critics and a key player in Hamas’ strategy of using Palestinian suffering to isolate the Jewish State.
Six weeks after Hamas’ October 7 atrocities, South Africa’s leader had already accused Israel of war crimes “tantamount to genocide.” A month later, the government in Pretoria initiated an International Court of Justice (ICJ) case based on this false accusation. Pretoria’s Hamas cheerleading has caused friction with Washington, with Trump citing the ICJ case as part of his decision to cut aid to South Africa this February. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is trying to reset relations with the United States, but hasn’t declared his intention to reset his approach to Palestinian terrorism.
The clip that Gift of the Givers shared began with a gunpoint recording of a ragged Yarden Bibas, Ariel and Kfir’s father, in Hamas captivity, blaming Israel’s prime minister for the death of his wife and children.
The seemingly coerced condemnation was intended to prove Israel’s guilt — and Hamas’ innocence.
The video then justified Shiri’s abduction by claiming that Palestinian terrorists “arrested” the “soldier,” and that she worked for the army and had been a member of Israel’s intelligence services. A Gazan fighter in the video even attempted to portray the kidnapping of children as a humanitarian gesture, saying, “upon her arrest, we allowed her to take her children out of mercy for them.” If those terrorists had an ounce of mercy, they would not have kidnapped babies into Gaza.
The video also repeatedly claimed that the “Nazi Israeli army” killed the Bibas family in one of its “indiscriminate airstrikes.” That fact was completely disproved by the Israeli government in forensics evidence it shared around the world, but no one seemed to care.
The attempt to draw comparisons between Israel and the Nazis is both an inversion of reality and employs the antisemitic tactic of delegitimizing Israel by claiming that the victims of Nazism have now become its perpetrators. Much like the erroneous charge of genocide, this absurd accusation erodes an important definition related to human rights.
Gift of the Givers has had other antisemitism controversies of late, with leaders declaring, “Zionists … run the world with fear. They control the world with money.”
October 7 was a “mask off” moment for many, including Gift of the Givers. The humanitarian organization and its leaders have been increasingly bold in their support of antisemitism and pro-Hamas propaganda. And why shouldn’t they, when their government serves as Hamas’ lawyer at the ICJ and accuses Israel — the victim of genocidal acts — of being the perpetrator?
David May is a research manager and senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. Follow David on X @DavidSamuelMay. Follow FDD on X @FDD.
The post Pro-Palestinian Activists Blame Bibas Children for Their Own Murders first appeared on Algemeiner.com.