Connect with us

Uncategorized

Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In

Copies of Amnesty International’s report named “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity” are seen at a press conference at the St George Hotel, in East Jerusalem, February 1, 2022. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

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 PressCNNReutersAFPBBCThe GuardianWashington 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.
▪Appropriating the Holocaust to stick the knife in over genocide accusations against Israel.

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.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

I’m an Iranian Student at Yale: Here Is the Problem With the University’s Discourse

Yale University Law School in New Haven, Conn. Photo: Juan Paulo Gutierrez/Flickr.

On April 7, the Yale MacMillan Center hosted a panel titled, “The War on Iran: A Roundtable Discussion.” The speakers repeatedly made false claims about Iran’s modern history and politics. When these claims were challenged by Iranians in the audience, they were met with dismissal and mockery.

This panel epitomizes a larger problem with how Iran is discussed at Yale. Our academic culture has allowed perceived expertise to shield weak and morally suspect arguments, while the voices of Iranians are only tolerated if they reinforce an established narrative.

Laura Robson, Elihu Professor of Global Affairs and History, started by saying she was “not an Iran expert.” She then described Iran’s 1953 government change as the United States collaborating with the British government to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister, “Mustafa” Mossadegh, in favor of the return of an autocratic monarchy.

This is inaccurate, not only because Robson actually meant “Mohammad” Mossadegh, but also because he was never democratically elected. When confronted, the professor claimed that descriptions of anybody, even beyond Iran, as democratically elected need to come with asterisks, morally equivocating dictators with other democratically elected leaders. She continued by saying there’s no question that the regime that the US replaced him with [Pahlavi 1953-1979] was more repressive than the one that came before it.

While criticisms regarding treatment of political prisoners apply to both the Pahlavi and Mossadegh periods, Robson omitted the fact that under Pahlavi, women gained the right to vote, run for office, and divorce. The legal marriage age was raised from 13 to 18. The first public gay wedding in the Middle East was held in Tehran, and the couple was congratulated by the Empress.

Arash Azizi, a fellow at the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism, said that former Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif speaks on behalf of the Iranian people, when the mass protests that occurred earlier this year — in which tens of thousands of people were killed — show that the regime clearly lacks popular support. This is something universally acknowledged by even those who oppose the current war.

The controversial US Special Envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, claimed that sanctions and war “have not done one iota” to weaken the Iranian regime or reduce its violence, and returned to the same conclusion he has defended for years: that blind faith in endless negotiation remains the only path forward regardless of past failures.

Contrary to this claim, the sanctions have significantly weakened the regime economically and constrained its terror proxies, and their conduct during this war shows how untrustworthy incessant negotiation attempts have been.

When an Iranian who had lost friends in the Ukrainian PS752 plane shot down and covered up by Zarif’s government asked the panel how they sleep at night knowing they support figures like Zarif, the panelists laughed and joked about using melatonin. The Iranian student’s emotional testimony was deemed uncivil by panel moderator Travis Zadeh, Chair of the Council on Middle East Studies, but the mockery that followed was treated as acceptable.

This is the problem with Iran discourse at Yale, and beyond Yale. Treating academic credentials as a pass to ignore views that don’t fit the pre-established political ideology of “experts” is not merely due to ignorance and disconnect from reality. It is a deliberate decision to launder these fundamental misunderstandings as facts in classrooms where future political leaders sit.

Iranian voices are already silenced through repression, Internet shutdowns, and executions. What little space that remains for Iran discussion is then hijacked by academics who avoid any resolution by framing everything about the region as “too complicated,” treat the region as a monolith, and present the regime’s terrorists as authentic Iranian voices.

Foreigners are told that any intervention is wrong, because Iranians must decide their own future. But when Iranians speak, they are silenced here and silenced in Iran by the very same policies that these foreign experts and discussion panels present as the best solution for Iran.

To make any progress towards peace, that choice must be reconsidered.

The Yale Daily News initially signaled interest in publishing this piece, but declined to move forward after heavy editorial pushback by at least one staff member.

Hadi Mahdeyan is an Iranian international student at Yale University, and a fellow at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA). Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CAMERA.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Group of Writers, Artists Urges Others to Boycott New York City’s Historic 92NY for Its Support of Israel

The 92nd Street Y (now known as 92Y) on New York’s Upper East Side. Photo: Ajay Suresh via Wikimedia Commons.

A group of anti-Israel artists and writers has launched an initiative urging creatives to boycott the New York institution 92NY, formally known as the 92nd Street Y, because the historic nonprofit community center has hosted cultural and political figures who support Israel.

The collective, called 92NO, wrote on its website that the 92NY “stage and venue is tainted by [its] actions throughout the genocide.”

In a statement explaining the group’s formation, members said their frustration with the 92NY started in October 2023, when it canceled a scheduled talk with Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Viet ُThanh Nguyen that was organized by 92NY’s Unterberg Poetry Center. The event was called off after the author signed an open letter that criticized Israel and called for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and an arms embargo on the Jewish state.

The same open letter accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” and the “occupation of Palestine.” It condemned “the deliberate killing of civilians,” without denouncing by name the Hamas terrorist organization, which led a deadly assault in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which started the conflict in Gaza. The letter was published shortly after the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

The cancellation of Nguyen’s event resulted in several writers withdrawing their own scheduled appearances from the 92NY and resignations from staff members. The 92NY venue paused events as part of its literary series “given recent staff resignations.” Seth Pensky, CEO of the 92NY, defended the decision at the time in an interview with New York Magazine and refuted accusations of “censorship.”

Nguyen has previously expressed support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, and in 2024, he joined over 1,000 prominent authors in vowing to boycott Israeli cultural institutions, including publishers.

In its statement, 92NO noted that after the Nguyen event was canceled, 92NY organized “a series of public events boosting cultural and political support for Israel” that featured figures such as former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, journalist Bari Weiss, former US special envoy for monitoring and combating antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt, actress Debra Messing, and “various Israeli military, cultural, and academic figures.” The protest group accused 92NY of expressing a “clear bias and support for Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza.”

“Throughout 2025 and into 2026, 92NY has continued to platform aggressively pro-Israel public figures,” the coalition stated, before listing featured speakers including journalist Bret Stephens, US Rep. Ritchie Torres, novelist Dara Horn, Israeli activist Hen Mazzig – whom the group labeled as an “Israeli propagandist” — Israeli journalists Ronen Bergman and Nadav Eyal, Bernard-Henri Lévy, New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, former White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp.

The group specifically accused Sullivan of having “outright complicity in the Gaza genocide,” and claimed he is “one of the chief architects and cheerleaders for Israel’s assault on Gaza.” 92NY also called Karp a “tech world Zionist Bond villain” and criticized Horn for “repeated genocide and apartheid denial.” They claimed Torres is “funding Israel’s genocide in Gaza” because he supports the US providing military aid to the longtime ally and took issue with his “obsessive pro-Israel posting on social media.”

“Nearly three dozen scheduled artists have withdrawn from events at 92NY,” 92NO said in conclusion. “Local activists gather regularly in front of the building to picket against the pro-war, pro-genocide speakers platformed on the 92NY stage. In April 2026, 92NO officially launched, calling on artists to refuse to allow their names and works to be used to launder the reputation of 92NY.”

92NY did not immediately respond to The Algemeiner‘s request for comment about 92NO.

On the 92NY.org Policy Page, the center has a section titled “Regarding Israel.”

“We reaffirm that, as we curate our programming going forward, we will continue to welcome a broad range of viewpoints to our platform, including welcoming people who are critical of Israel, as long as they have not and do not actively call for the destruction of the State of Israel or question its legitimacy,” the policy states. The institution also notes on its website that it will “work to avoid giving platform to hate speech of any kind, including misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, racism, Islamophobia, and, of course, antisemitism.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Deni Avdija Makes History as First Israeli to Win NBA Playoff Game — on Israel’s Independence Day

Apr 14, 2026; Phoenix, Arizona, USA; Portland Trail Blazers forward Deni Avdija (8) fouls Phoenix Suns forward Dillon Brooks (3) in the second half during the play-in rounds of the 2026 NBA Playoffs at Mortgage Matchup Center. Photo: Mark J. Rebilas-Imagn Images via Reuters

Deni Avdija became the first Israeli to win an NBA Playoff game when his team, the Portland Trail Blazers, defeated the San Antonio Spurs 106-103 in a Game 2 matchup on Tuesday night, which marked the team’s first playoff win since 2021.

Under interim head coach Tiago Splitter, the 6-foot-8 forward made his playoff debut on Sunday against the Spurs and became just the second player in NBA history to record 30+ points, 10+ rebounds and 5+ assists in their first playoff game. He followed in the footsteps of NBA legend LeBron James, who did the same in 2006, according to the Trail Blazers. Avdija, 25, is also the first player from the Blazers to achieve those numbers in a playoff game in the history of the franchise.

The Blazers lost 98-111 loss on Sunday against the Spurs before redeeming themselves on Tuesday with a victory.

Avdija finished with 14 points, four rebounds, three assists, and one block over the span of 30 minutes in Tuesday’s Game 2 win over the Spurs in the first round of the playoffs. The Tel Aviv native finished the game as Portland’s third-leading scorer.

The Blazers will host the Spurs for Game 3 on Friday.

Before the start of the game on Israel’s Independence Day, which began on Tuesday night, Avdija was asked by Israel’s Sport 5 what he would bring from the Jewish state to the NBA. He replied, “The food, the sea, and the people.”

It was announced on Sunday that Avdija is one of three finalists for the NBA’s Most Improved Player award. He is up against Nickeil Alexander-Walker of the Atlanta Hawks and Jalen Duren of the Detroit Pistons. The winner of the award will be announced on Friday.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News