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
Iran Supreme Leader Says Will Not Yield as Protests Simmer and US Threatens
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran, Iran January 3, 2026. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed not to yield after US President Donald Trump threatened to come to the aid of protesters, as rights groups reported a sharp rise in arrests following days of unrest sparked by soaring inflation.
Speaking in a recorded appearance on Saturday, Khamenei said the Islamic Republic “will not yield to the enemy” and that rioters should be “put in their place.”
State-affiliated media reported three deaths on Saturday, with rights groups saying more than 10 had already died in demonstrations across Iran since Sunday as the collapsing rial currency hits an economy already undermined by sanctions.
ECONOMIC CRISIS
Videos circulating on social media, which Reuters could not immediately verify, purported to show protests in southern and western Iran. In one, marchers called on other Iranians to come onto the streets, chanting “We don’t want spectators: join us”.
Mehr and Fars news agencies, both state affiliated, reported that a security forces member and two demonstrators were killed in Malekshahi, a western town, when what they called armed protesters tried to enter a police station.
Authorities have attempted to maintain a dual approach to the unrest, saying protests over the economy are legitimate and will be met by dialogue, while meeting some demonstrations with tear gas amid violent street confrontations.
“The bazaaris were right. They are right to say they cannot do business in these conditions,” said Khamenei, referring to market traders’ concerns over the currency slide.
“We will speak with the protesters but talking to rioters is useless. Rioters should be put in their place,” he added.
Reports of violence have centered on small cities in Iran’s western provinces, where several people have been killed, according to state media and rights groups. Authorities have said two members of the security services had died and more than a dozen were injured in the unrest.
Hengaw, a Kurdish rights group, said late on Friday that it had identified 133 people arrested, an increase of 77 from the previous day.
Trump on Friday said the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go” but did not specify what action it might take against Iran, where it carried out airstrikes last summer, joining an Israeli campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear sites and military leaders.
The threat of action adds to the pressure on Iran’s leaders as they navigate one of the most difficult periods in decades, with the sanctions-hit economy shrinking and the government struggling to provide water and electricity in some regions.
Iran has suffered a succession of major strategic blows to its regional position since the start of the war in Gaza in 2023 between its ally Hamas and Israel.
Israeli strikes hammered Iran’s strongest regional partner Hezbollah. Tehran’s close ally Bashar al-Assad was ousted in Syria. The Israeli and US assault strikes on Iran set back the expensive atomic program and killed senior military leaders, revealing extensive penetration of Tehran’s upper echelons.
FLARING VIOLENCE
The protests are the biggest since mass nationwide demonstrations in late 2022 over the death in custody of Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini. This week’s demonstrations have not matched those in scale, but still represent the toughest domestic test for authorities in three years.
Rights groups such as Hengaw and activists posting on social media reported continued protests and violence by security forces across Iran, while state-affiliated media reported what it called attacks on property by infiltrators “in the name of protest.”
State television reported arrests in western and central Iran and near the capital Tehran, including of people accused of manufacturing petrol bombs and home-made pistols.
Numerous social media posts overnight said there had been unrest in a number of cities and towns, as well as three districts of Tehran.
Reuters could not immediately verify the reports by rights groups, state media or social media accounts.
Uncategorized
Trump Says US Oil Companies Will Spend Billions in Venezuela
A photograph posted by US President Donald Trump on his Truth Social account shows him sitting next to CIA Director John Ratcliffe and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as they watch the US military operation in Venezuela, January 3, 2026. Photo: @realDonaldTrump/Handout via REUTERS
President Donald Trump said that American oil companies were prepared to enter Venezuela and invest to restore production in the South American country, an announcement that came just hours after Nicolás Maduro was captured and removed by US forces.
“We’re going to have our very large US oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said on Saturday.
While Chevron is the only American major with current operations in Venezuela, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, among others, have storied histories in the country. The American Petroleum Institute, the largest US oil trade group, said on Saturday it was monitoring the emerging situation.
“We’re closely watching developments involving Venezuela, including the potential implications for global energy markets,” an API spokesperson told Reuters.
Chevron, which exports around 150,000 bpd of crude from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast, said it is focused on the safety and wellbeing of its employees, in addition to the integrity of its assets.
“We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations,” a Chevron spokesperson said in an emailed response to questions.
Top oilfield service companies SLB, Baker Hughes, Halliburton and Weatherford did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Exxon and Conoco did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters.
Trump’s plans to have large US oil companies enter Venezuela and get “oil flowing” will be hindered by lack of infrastructure that will require many years and heavy investment, analysts said. “There are still many questions that need to be answered about the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, but it is clear that it will take tens of billions of dollars to turn that industry around,” said Peter McNally, Global Head of Sector Analysts at Third Bridge, adding that it could take at least a decade of Western oil majors committing to the country.
A US embargo on all Venezuelan oil, meanwhile, remains in full effect, Trump said. He told reporters that the US military forces would remain in position until US demands had been fully met.
“The American armada remains poised in position, and the US retains all military options until United States demands have been fully met and fully satisfied,” he said.
Uncategorized
US Captures Venezuela’s Maduro, Trump Says US Will Run the Country
Smoke rises near Fort Tiuna during a full blackout, following explosions and loud noises, after U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. has struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas, Venezuela, January 3, 2026. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
The US attacked Venezuela and deposed its long-serving President Nicolas Maduro in an overnight operation on Saturday, President Donald Trump said, in Washington’s most direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama.
“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American might and competence in American history,” Trump said at a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where he was flanked by senior officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Trump said Maduro was in custody and that American officials would take control of Venezuela.
“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said. “We can’t take a chance that someone else takes over Venezuela who doesn’t have the interests of Venezuelans in mind.”
POTENTIAL POWER VACUUM
It is unclear how Trump plans to oversee Venezuela. Despite a dramatic overnight operation that knocked out electricity in part of Caracas and captured Maduro in or near one of his safe houses, US forces have no control over the country itself, and Maduro’s government appears to still be in charge.
The removal of Maduro, who led Venezuela with a heavy hand for more than 12 years, potentially opens a power vacuum in the Latin American country. Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez — Maduro’s presumptive successor — is in Russia, four sources familiar with her movements said, stoking confusion about who is next in line to govern the South American country.
Russia’s foreign ministry said the report that Rodriguez is in Russia was “fake.”
Any serious destabilization in the nation of 28 million people threatens to hand Trump the type of quagmire that has marked US foreign policy for much of the 21st century, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq – which were also premised on regime change.
The US has not made such a direct intervention in its backyard region since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago to depose military leader Manuel Noriega over allegations that he led a drug-running operation. The United States has leveled similar charges against Maduro, accusing him of running a “narco-state” and rigging the 2024 election.
Maduro, a 63-year-old former bus driver handpicked by the dying Hugo Chavez to succeed him in 2013, has denied those claims and said Washington was intent on taking control of his nation’s oil reserves, the largest in the world.
VENEZUELAN OFFICIALS DECRY U.S. ACTION
The streets of Venezuela appeared calm as the sun rose. Soldiers patrolled some parts and some small pro-Maduro crowds began gathering in Caracas.
Others, however, expressed relief.
“I’m happy, I doubted for a moment that it was happening because it’s like a movie,” said merchant Carolina Pimentel, 37, in the city of Maracay. “It’s all calm now but I feel like at any moment everyone will be out celebrating.”
Venezuelan officials condemned Saturday’s intervention. “In the unity of the people we will find the strength to resist and to triumph,” Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said in a video message.
While various Latin American governments oppose Maduro and say he stole the 2024 vote, direct US action revives painful memories of past interventions and is generally strongly opposed by governments and populations in the region.
Trump’s action recalls the Monroe Doctrine, laid out in 1823 by President James Monroe, laying US claim to influence in the region, as well as the “gunboat diplomacy” seen under Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s.
Venezuelan allies Russia, Cuba and Iran were quick to condemn the strikes as a violation of sovereignty. Tehran urged the UN Security Council to stop the “unlawful aggression.”
Among major Latin American nations, Argentina’s President Javier Milei lauded Venezuela’s new “freedom” while Mexico condemned the intervention and Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said it crossed “an unacceptable line.”