Uncategorized
Why Amnesty International Whispers About Hamas Yet Shouts About Israel
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
More than two years after Hamas perpetrated its massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, Amnesty International finally released a report documenting those crimes. But they’ve made it quite hard to locate.
Amnesty’s home page currently has links to articles titled “Stand with the woman accused of witchcraft in Ghana” and “Demand accountability in Tanzania,” but the Hamas report is nowhere to be found.
If you navigate to their page about Israel, you can only get there if you know where to click.
This is the title of the report’s release: “Sustainable peace requires international justice for all victims of all crimes in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
The first subheading is: “Israel’s ongoing genocide, apartheid and unlawful occupation.” It goes on for 11 paragraphs detailing those accusations, but the link to the report about Hamas is also somewhere in there.
Amnesty claims that the long delay is nothing unusual, as it is difficult to accurately document evidence in a war zone. But this did not stop them from issuing a nearly 300 page report accusing Israel of genocide over a year ago. Or a report last month titled, “Post-ceasefire: Israel’s genocide in the occupied Gaza Strip continues.”
When it comes to condemning Israel, Amnesty runs and shouts. With regard to condemning Hamas, they go at a snail’s pace and then whisper.
It turns out, according to reporting from The Free Press, that there was significant pushback within Amnesty against releasing the Hamas report at all. Some Amnesty officials complained that “the situation in Gaza is getting worse,” and “the report could be used by Israel to justify its actions.” If it was released in the Fall, they were concerned it also might interfere with recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.
But doesn’t failure to condemn the Hamas attack give the impression that it was somehow justified, and make Hamas more likely to do it again? And doesn’t Amnesty’s constant vilification of Israel risk inciting violence against Jews and Israelis, as we have unfortunately seen so much of, including just recently at Bondi Beach in Australia?
Amnesty claims the universality and indivisibility of human rights as core values, along with impartiality and independence. What we see in its long-delayed and downplayed condemnation of Hamas atrocities, however, is its betrayal of its own principles in favor of advocacy for a popular political cause.
Human rights were created to establish norms of behavior that protect all people, regardless of politics, history, or culture. It’s well known that many perceive Palestinians as battling Israeli oppression and domination in a fight for freedom. Others think Palestinians have time and again rejected actual offers of statehood or independence, and are using these claims as mere cover for what is really a fight for Israel’s destruction. These two narratives are deeply conflicting and, for many, irreconcilable.
The proper role of human rights is to step in and say that even though we cannot agree on even the basic historical narrative of what’s happening, there are universal norms of behavior that bind us. No matter how much Palestinians believe they are oppressed and their cause is righteous, they cannot fire rockets at Israeli cities, attack Israeli civilians, or hold Israelis hostage. And no matter how certain Israel feels that Palestinians are aiming for its destruction, it may not use indiscriminate force, deny civilians aid, or engage in collective punishment.
This is what Amnesty should campaign for, without taking sides as to who has the moral high ground. But unfortunately, Amnesty has completely adopted the Palestinian narrative of victimhood, and then distorted human rights to advocate for the Palestinian cause. It emphasizes Israeli violations in ways that generate political pressure and outrage, while minimizing and contextualizing Hamas atrocities to avoid political fallout.
This turns human rights from universal standards into political weapons. It means Amnesty loses credibility with all who do not accept its political slant, and that it has no more moral authority than anyone else with an opinion.
When we are upset by the conduct of organizations such as Amnesty, we have to remember that human rights themselves are not the problem. In fact, human rights have never been more needed than now. The problem is so-called human rights groups that throw away their mission in order to take sides in political issues and campaign for causes.
When human rights organizations abandon universality for advocacy, they do not advance justice — they undermine the very idea of human rights itself.
Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he uses short fiction and questions to explore human rights at https://shalzed.com/
Uncategorized
Iran and US Views on Sanctions Relief Differ, Iranian Official Tells Reuters
Iranian women walk past an anti-US billboard in Tehran, Iran, February 19, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Iran and the United States have differing views over sanctions relief in talks to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Sunday, adding that new talks were planned in early March as fears of a military confrontation grow.
Iran and the US renewed negotiations earlier this month to tackle their decades-long dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program as the US builds up its military capability in the Middle East, fueling fears of a wider war.
Iran has threatened to strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces.
“The last round of talks showed that US ideas regarding the scope and mechanism of sanctions relief differ from Iran’s demands. Both sides need to reach a logical timetable for lifting sanctions,” the official said.
“This roadmap must be reasonable and based on mutual interests.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Friday that he expected to have a draft counterproposal ready within days, while US President Donald Trump said he was considering limited military strikes.
READINESS TO COMPROMISE
While rejecting a US demand for “zero enrichment” – a major sticking point in past negotiations – Tehran has signaled its readiness to compromise on its nuclear work.
Washington views enrichment inside Iran as a potential pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and wants its right to enrich uranium to be recognized.
Washington has also demanded that Iran relinquish its stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The UN nuclear agency last year estimated that stockpile at more than 440 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60% fissile purity, a small step away from the 90% that is considered weapons grade.
The Iranian official said Tehran could seriously consider a combination of exporting part of its HEU stockpile, diluting the purity of its most highly enriched uranium and the establishment of a regional enrichment consortium in exchange for the recognition of Iran’s right to “peaceful nuclear enrichment.”
“The negotiations continue and the possibility of reaching an interim agreement exists,” he said.
BENEFITS FOR BOTH SIDES
Iranian authorities have said that a diplomatic solution delivers economic benefits for both Tehran and Washington.
“Within the economic package under negotiation, the United States has also been offered opportunities for serious investment and tangible economic interests in Iran’s oil industry,” the official said.
However, he said Tehran will not hand over control of its oil and mineral resources.
“Ultimately, the US can be an economic partner for Iran, nothing more. American companies can always participate as contractors in Iran’s oil and gas fields.”
Uncategorized
Mike Huckabee’s Comments to Tucker Carlson on Israel and Middle East Land Draw Condemnation in Region
Tucker Carlson speaks on first day of AmericaFest 2025 at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona, Dec. 18, 2025. Photo: Charles-McClintock Wilson/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Comments by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggesting that Israel had a biblical right to much of the Middle East drew condemnation over the weekend from countries across the region, who called his remarks “dangerous and inflammatory.”
Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has been a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his political career and a longtime defender of Jewish settlements in the West Bank – land which the Palestinians seek for a state.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson that was conducted on Wednesday in Israel and aired on Friday, the populist US talk show host asked Huckabee about Israel’s right to exist and about Jewish roots in the ancient land.
Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said:
“It would be fine if they took it all. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”
Huckabee added: “We’re talking about this land that the state of Israel now lives in and wants to have peace in, they’re not trying to take over Jordan, they’re not trying to take over Syria, they’re not trying to take over Iraq or anywhere else. They want to protect their people.”
In response, a joint statement condemning Huckabee’s comments was issued by the Palestinians and countries in the Middle East and beyond, including Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan.
They said his comments were: “Dangerous and inflammatory remarks, which constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and pose a grave threat to the security and stability of the region.”
A US Embassy spokesperson said Huckabee’s comments did not reflect any change in US policy and that his full remarks made clear that Israel has no desire to change its current boundaries.
Israeli officials did not immediately comment on the interview or the reaction from countries that signed the joint statement.
Uncategorized
Jack Hughes Makes History as 1st Jewish Male Athlete with Olympic ‘Golden Goal’
Milano Cortina 2026 Olympics – Ice Hockey – Men’s Gold Medal Game – Canada vs United States – Milano Santagiulia Ice Hockey Arena, Milan, Italy – February 22, 2026. Jack Hughes of United States scores their second goal in overtime to win gold. Photo: REUTERS/David W Cerny
i24 News – Jack Hughes made history on Sunday as the first hockey player widely recognized for both having a bar mitzvah and scoring an Olympic game-winning goal, leading the United States to its first men’s hockey gold medal since 1980.
The 24-year-old New Jersey Devils star from Orlando, Florida, scored early in sudden-death overtime to secure a 2-1 victory over Canada at the Milan Cortina Olympics. Hughes finished a cross-ice pass from teammate Zach Werenski, who had wrestled the puck from Canada’s Nathan MacKinnon.
“This is all about our country right now,” Hughes said. “I love the USA. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable. The USA Hockey brotherhood is so strong.” Hughes also endured a high stick during the game, losing a couple of teeth but continuing to play.
The victory marked the first US win over Canada in a top-level men’s competition since the 1996 World Cup of Hockey. The win completed a US sweep of Olympic hockey gold, following the women’s 2-1 overtime victory against Canada on Thursday.
Hughes ended the tournament with three goals and three assists, contributing offensively even from a lower line. His older brother, Quinn Hughes, a Minnesota Wild defenseman, scored the US overtime winner against Sweden in the quarterfinals. Their parents, Jim and Ellen Hughes, were present for the celebrations.
Team USA also paid tribute to the late Johnny Gaudreau, who was killed in 2024 with his brother. Gaudreau’s jersey hung in the locker room throughout the tournament, and players carried it onto the ice after the medal ceremony. Two of Gaudreau’s children joined the team for commemorative photos.
Sunday’s match marked the third men’s Olympic gold medal game between the US and Canada, with Canada having won in 2002 and 2010. Hughes’ golden goal solidifies him as a historic figure in hockey, blending his Jewish heritage with Olympic triumph.