Uncategorized
Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In
Amnesty International’s latest significant report, “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” is in keeping with the organization’s long history of hostility towards Israel — and accuses the Jewish State of genocide in Gaza.
According to Amnesty, its report:
documents Israel’s actions during its offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip from 7 October 2023. It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Amnesty’s conclusion, however, is categorically wrong.
Amnesty Redefines Genocide
Having already resorted, in 2022, to formulating a totally new definition of what it calls “the crime of apartheid,” Amnesty has changed the definition of genocide to suit its predetermined conclusions.
Perhaps knowing it doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, @amnesty has resorted to manufacturing its own definition of ‘#genocide’ against Israel, by claiming in their report that the universally established – and sole accepted legal definition – as outlined in the Genocide… pic.twitter.com/cUTDliObR5
— Arsen Ostrovsky
(@Ostrov_A) December 5, 2024
Despite this, the coverage of Amnesty’s genocide report demonstrates how too many journalists are not prepared to exercise their own critical thinking.
The media commonly suffer from the “Halo Effect,” whereby journalists cite non-governmental and so-called human rights organizations like Amnesty, treating them as beyond reproach and assuming their information is authoritative.
This effect is exacerbated by the need for the media to get the story out quickly. It’s unlikely that a journalist would spend their time properly reviewing the substantial 296-page Amnesty report. So, Amnesty’s talking points in its six-page press release summary or statements at a press conference will be what appears in the media.
And the news cycle moves quickly. By the time those who wish to respond to the report in-depth will have finished reading it and issuing a response, the Amnesty story will be over. The impact of the report, however, and the genocide charge, will last much longer, becoming part of the media narrative, as Israel comes under sustained assault from multiple sources seeking to delegitimize its right to self-defense and even its right to exist.
NGO Monitor did manage to obtain the Amnesty press release in advance, noting in its preliminary analysis that the six-page, 2,500-word embargoed summary “highlights the absence of substance and the dominance of slogans and myths. Following previous practice, the press release declares Israel to be guilty of genocide, regardless of the reality in Gaza. This basic paradigm is evidenced by Amnesty’s highly selective use of ‘evidence,’ including fundamental omission of facts that do not support its political line, and the blatantly manipulative discussion of civilian casualties.”
This discussion of civilian casualties is taken up by Salo Aizenberg, who notes Amnesty’s avoidance of addressing the combatants killed figure and the resulting civilian/combatant ratio would have shown evidence of the IDF’s precision targeting, thus eviscerating Amnesty’s report.
I noticed on page 59 Amnesty cites an IDF claim from Jan 2024 saying they killed 8,000 fighters. I searched for the recent estimates of 17,000-20,000 (I searched several numbers) and read the entire section 6.1.2 “Scale of Killings and Injuries” where casualties are discussed in…
— Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) December 5, 2024
NGO Monitor also noted that Amnesty had “made an embargoed text of the report and a lengthy press release available to select journalists in an attempt to ensure favorable media coverage. Although under no obligation to adhere to Amnesty’s embargo, journalists who cover Amnesty’s report should avoid this manipulation and incorporate detailed critical analysis.”
It appears that ship has already sailed as media outlets, including Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, AFP, BBC, The Guardian, Washington Post, and Sky News, jump on the story.
Amnesty Israel Rejects the Report
So, it’s unlikely that any international press will do the extra legwork to question Amnesty’s malleable definition of genocide. It’s also unlikely that any will sit up and take notice of the press release (Hebrew) issued by Amnesty’s Israel branch.
While still highly critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, Amnesty Israel states it “does not accept the claim that genocide has been proven to be taking place in the Gaza Strip and does not accept the operative findings of the report.”
Haaretz, meanwhile, which is followed religiously by foreign media, reports on a joint statement from several members of Amnesty Israel and Jewish members of Amnesty International who:
argue that report’s “artificial analysis” — especially with regard to the widespread destruction in Gaza, which allegedly indicates a genocidal intent — suggests that the authors “reached a predetermined conclusion — and did not draw a conclusion based on an objective review of the facts and the law.”
“From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the ‘genocide report,’ even when research was still in its initial stages,” the Jewish employees reveal.
“This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled ‘genocide report’ and then to have to conclude that it is ‘only’ about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations.”
The joint statement further stated that the report “is motivated by a desire to support a popular narrative among Amnesty International’s target audience,” and that it stems “unfortunately, from an atmosphere within Amnesty International of minimizing the seriousness of the October 7 massacre.
“It is a failure — and sometimes even a refusal — to address the Israeli victims in a personal and humane manner.” According to the Jewish staff, the international organization also “ignored efforts to raise these concerns.”
But will Western and foreign journalists take any notice?
Holocaust Appropriation
It says much about a journalist’s mindset when the Holocaust is appropriated to subconsciously associate Israel’s actions in Gaza, which Amnesty is claiming to be genocide, with the very real Nazi genocide against the Jewish people.
Sadly, both the Associated Press and The Guardian went down that road in their stories on the Amnesty report.
Whatever is happening in Gaza, it is categorically nothing like the Holocaust.
So why does @AP need to mention it other than to subconsciously plant an offensive and inappropriate parallel? pic.twitter.com/81VWL1LaPZ
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 5, 2024
Accusing Israel of weaponizing antisemitism even in advance of a reaction to an Amnesty report.
We see you, @guardian. pic.twitter.com/n9u4LXP6Uu
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 5, 2024
The Guardian even went as far as to preempt Israeli reaction to the Amnesty report, claiming it would “generate accusations of antisemitism,” effectively accusing Israelis and Jews of weaponizing antisemitism in bad faith.
AFP didn’t even bother to include any Israeli reaction to the report beyond the boilerplate line: “Israel has repeatedly and forcefully denied allegations of genocide, accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields.”
The Washington Post quotes Paul O’Brien, executive director of Amnesty International USA who says: “What the law requires is that we prove that there is sufficient evidence that there is [genocidal] intent, amongst all the other complex intents that are going to exist in warfare.”
And this is the crux: The death toll and destruction in Gaza can be explained as an inevitable and tragic outcome of a war where Hamas have done everything possible to put Gaza’s civilian population in harm’s way. And Israel has taken every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, while still allowing humanitarian aid to cross into Gaza.
The inevitable result of Amnesty’s approach is to turn every war into a genocide, thereby stripping the word of its true meaning.
Israel’s actions are not those of a state that shows intent to commit a genocide, and to charge Israel with such a crime shows just how divorced from reality Amnesty International and its cheerleaders are.
Sadly, the international media have given an unquestioning platform for this libel.
The author is the Managing Editor of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
Democrats’ split over Israel in spotlight, as Chris Van Hollen challenges Chuck Schumer for Senate leader
Sen. Chuck Schumer helped Democrats win back the Senate with a historic gain of at least nine seats in the midterm elections, giving his party a 56-seat majority, just four votes short of overcoming most filibusters.
Yet the New York Democrat, who has led Senate Democrats since 2017, now faces a rare leadership challenge from Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland — a contest that will not only determine who leads the chamber but also how Democrats use their regained power.
As majority leader, Schumer would have considerable influence over which bills receive floor time, which amendments get considered and how the party manages disagreements over Israel.
Schumer has largely held firm to his longtime support for Israel, trying to manage his caucus even as the party has grown increasingly divided over U.S. military assistance and weapons sales. Now, the leadership battle could force him to confront those divisions more directly, including whether to allow votes on legislation that would restrict aid to Israel. Schumer, the country’s highest-ranking Jewish elected official, has said defending Israel is a central part of his political identity. Van Hollen, meanwhile, has emerged as one of the Senate’s fiercest critics of the Israeli government.
The challenge to Schumer was sparked by a pair of Jewish Democrats: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the progressive icon, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, both of whom called for a change in leadership. It comes at a moment when the Democratic Party is changing. A new generation of senators is entering Congress; progressive activists, emboldened by their victories in recent years, are demanding a more confrontational approach to President Donald Trump and the United States’ long and unwavering commitment to Israel.
On Election Day earlier this month, Trump himself announced his plan to end roughly $4 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel.
Does Schumer have the votes?
Senate Democrats will choose their leader in a secret-ballot election on Dec. 1. A candidate would need 29 votes to win if all 56 members participate.
Schumer expressed confidence that he has enough support to remain leader. Van Hollen has acknowledged that he is the underdog, and claims to have the backing of more than 10 senators.
A Punchbowl News tracker on Sunday showed 14 senators publicly supporting Schumer, five backing Van Hollen, three opposed to Schumer without expressing support for his challenger, and 36 who remain uncommitted. The Hill separately reported that at least 22 senators have privately indicated they will support Schumer.
Van Hollen has attracted support from several newly elected senators, including Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan and Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, along with Sanders and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Massachusetts.
Opposition to Schumer or supporting a leadership contest does not automatically translate into support for his challenger.
Schumer has a significant advantage mathematically, given the relationships he has built over decades in the Senate. He also played an active role in recruiting candidates who won seats in red and purple states, including Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Josh Turek in Iowa and Scott Colom in Mississippi.
Israel becomes part of the leadership fight
Neither candidate has made Israel central to their campaign for Senate majority leader. But their differences on the issue have drawn attention from Jewish organizations and progressive groups, which are taking opposite sides.
Van Hollen has repeatedly called for restrictions on U.S. military aid to Israel, supported measures to block weapons sales and accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. In remarks at the New Jewish Narrative’s annual gala in Washington last month, Van Hollen said, “We’re doing nobody any favors by providing a blank check regardless of the conduct of the government of Israel.” The progressive Jewish group is backing Van Hollen’s bid.
Schumer has sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, most notably in a March 2024 Senate speech calling for new Israeli elections. But he has continued to defend Israel’s security and preserve the U.S.-Israel relationship. In a 2024 interview with the Forward, Schumer said that “having a majority leader who’s committed to Israel is vital for Israel’s relationship with the U.S.” He faced online backlash earlier this year for saying his job as leader is to “fight” for Israel aid.
That distinction has become central to how Democratic-aligned organizations view the leadership contest — part of a larger debate over the direction of the party, particularly its relationship with Israel.
The progressive organization Our Revolution endorsed Van Hollen, calling for an agenda that includes ending U.S. military aid to Israel and reducing the influence of wealthy donors.
Track AIPAC, a group that monitors contributions from the pro-Israel lobbying organization, also pledged to help Van Hollen win. “The voters who delivered this majority want a leader who answers to them, and Chris Van Hollen has shown he will,” Casey Kennedy, the group’s co-founder, said in a statement.
On the other side, the Jewish Democratic Council of America announced Friday that it supports Schumer’s continued leadership, along with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ bid to become House speaker. “Advancing these priorities will require experience and steady leadership,” said Halie Soifer, the organization’s CEO.
Winning may be the easy part
Schumer remains the favorite to win. But the vote could mark a difficult political chapter for the 75-year-old senator, who may also face a primary challenge if he seeks reelection in 2028.
If Van Hollen attracts only a small number of votes, Schumer will emerge with a stronger mandate to lead. If his challenger wins substantial support, Schumer could begin his new term with a fractured and more progressive caucus seeking a different approach.
Schumer might face pressure to allow more debate on Israel-related legislation, even if he personally opposes it. But there are also limits to how far those debates would likely go. The new majority also includes moderates, longtime supporters of Israel and senators representing swing and red states that flipped blue in this cycle.
The post Democrats’ split over Israel in spotlight, as Chris Van Hollen challenges Chuck Schumer for Senate leader appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
When a Jewish prisoner died in Ohio in 1918, four fellow inmates left the penitentiary in civilian clothes to ensure he got a proper burial
Jack Nast wanted to be buried in a Jewish cemetery.
He died in April 1918 while incarcerated at the Ohio Penitentiary in Columbus. Little is known about the circumstances that brought him there, but another prisoner, Morris Hess, preserved an account of his final days.
As he lay ill, Nast cried out that he was a Jew, Hess wrote. He expressed pride in Jewish history and its achievements, faith in the teachings of Judaism, and regret that his own life had not lived up to its principles. He wished to receive a burial befitting someone “born in the House of Israel.”
With the aid of others, his request was granted.
Isaac B. Jashenosky and Jacob Myers, two men who regularly visited the Jewish prisoners, were with Nast before he died. Jashenosky, whom the prisoners called “rabbi,” conducted the funeral service at an unidentified Jewish cemetery, likely in Columbus. When Nast’s relatives, whom Hess described as wealthy, refused to contribute toward the expenses, Warden Preston E. Thomas permitted the prison’s Jewish inmates to contribute to a collection for the funeral.
Four prisoners were also allowed to attend the burial in civilian clothing. They listened as Jashenosky delivered his remarks and Nast’s remains were returned to the earth.
“Kaddish was said and will be said every week for him,” Hess wrote.
The account appeared in The American Israelite, a Cincinnati Jewish newspaper, under the heading “Prisoners in Ohio Penitentiary are Grateful.” Hess signed the letter with his name and prison number, 45511.
Jewish life behind prison walls
The men who helped bury Nast were part of a larger effort to sustain Jewish religious life inside Ohio’s prisons. By 1899, prisoners were being excused from work for Jewish holidays and provided with special food. In 1902, about ten Jewish inmates received matzo for Passover. By 1913, religious services were also being arranged at correctional institutions in Mansfield and Lancaster.
In 1915, Charles Albert Rosenbaum wrote to The American Israelite about B’nai B’rith’s efforts to reach Jewish prisoners in Ohio.
For years, Rosenbaum wrote, Jewish prisoners had watched representatives of other faiths visit their institutions, “not with envious but with saddened eyes.” They wondered why their own people had been so neglectful. In prison libraries, they read of “the beauties and the godlike charities of the Jewish peoples,” but turned from those pages, looked at “the cold steel walls of their cells” and doubted.
“How all of this has been changed!” Rosenbaum declared.
Rosenbaum credited Jashenosky, Myers and other Columbus volunteers with organizing visits and religious services. With Warden Thomas’ permission, more than 100 services had been held over the preceding two years, he reported, without guards present.
Hess was among those who recorded these gatherings. In 1917, he described a service attended by Jashenosky and Myers, noting that one visitor, Mrs. I. J. Shatz, had distributed cigars to the prisoners.
Freedom in the penitentiary
In 1920, Hess described Passover services held with the cooperation of Warden Thomas and his wife, Mary Thomas. Women from Columbus’ Ezrath Nosheim Society provided a holiday meal.
Jashenosky preached that although everyone desired liberty, true freedom came through “the awakening of the soul.” He told the prisoners that, “Freedom is not alone a privilege, but a lifelong obligation.”
In December 1921, another prisoner, Harry Joseph, writing on behalf of the Jewish inmates, described the work of B’nai B’rith, the Council of Jewish Women and the Ezrath Nosheim Society.
He recalled the holiday meals that women from Columbus had prepared and served, including a dinner following Yom Kippur services. Their presence, he wrote, reminded the prisoners of “the Jewish fireside with its family love.”
He continued, “The knowledge that someone cares is an incentive to reach the end of this rocky road of adversity and become useful citizens.”
Jashenosky died in April 1930, at the age of 79. Newspapers reported that he had served as a prison chaplain for more than half a century.
Before he died, Jashenosky made one final request. He wanted two Jewish prisoners, Abe Shapiro and Adam Sikorski, to attend his funeral.
Warden Thomas granted permission.
The post When a Jewish prisoner died in Ohio in 1918, four fellow inmates left the penitentiary in civilian clothes to ensure he got a proper burial appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Houston Astros hire former Team Israel manager Brad Ausmus as skipper
(JTA) — The Houston Astros hired Brad Ausmus as manager, the team announced Wednesday, making the former Team Israel skipper the lone active Jewish manager in Major League Baseball.
This will be Ausmus’ third managerial stint in MLB. He previously led the Detroit Tigers from 2014-2017 and the Los Angeles Angels in 2019. Ausmus, 57, owns a 386-422 career managerial record. He will be introduced at a press conference at Houston’s Daikin Park on Friday.
Ausmus most recently served as the New York Yankees’ bench coach from 2024-2026 and also previously worked in the front offices of the San Diego Padres and Angels. He had interviewed for the Astros’ managerial opening in 2020 and for their general manager role in 2022.
Ausmus spent 10 of his 18 MLB seasons with the Astros. He finished his playing career with a .251 batting average, .325 on-base percentage and .344 slugging percentage. The New Haven, Connecticut, native managed Team Israel during the qualifiers for the 2013 World Baseball Classic, served on its coaching staff in the 2023 WBC and managed the team in the 2026 tournament.
“Regarding Aus, he is just a perfect big league manager in every way and there are not many people you can say that about,” Nate Fish, the CEO of Israel Baseball Americas and a former Israel player and coach, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “He is smart. He is calm. He has the experience. He is a good fit for any team but a perfect fit in Houston considering he played 10 years there.”
Fish also pointed out that “this is the second time [Ausmus] has been hired to manage in the big leagues following a stint managing Team Israel. Just sayin’. There is a pattern!”
Israel won two of its four games in the 2026 tournament, securing a spot in the 2030 competition.
“I am honored and excited to take on this role,” Ausmus said before the March tournament. “I’ve been incredibly proud to be part of Team Israel’s journey. My focus remains exactly where it has always been: building a cohesive, competitive team that proudly represents Israel on the world stage. We have a solid foundation, and I’m ready to hit the ground running with our talented staff and players to achieve our goals for 2026.”
Ausmus, a former catcher, played for the Astros from 1997-1998 and again from 2001-2008. He won three Gold Glove Awards for his defense with Houston and was an All-Star in 1999 with Detroit. His 1,971 career MLB appearances are the most ever by a Jewish player, according to the Jewish Baseball Museum.
“I am very excited to be back in Houston,” Ausmus said in a statement. “The Astros and the city of Houston have been a huge part of my life, and I’m thrilled to create a new chapter as the team’s manager. I can’t wait to get to work.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Houston Astros hire former Team Israel manager Brad Ausmus as skipper appeared first on The Forward.
