Amnesty International's Plan For Ending The Israel-Palestinian Conflict

In a report on May 2007, NGO-Monitor noted a report:

by Andres Ballesteros, Jorge Restrepo, Michael Spagat and Juan Vargas of the University of London and the (CERAC), a Bogota-based conflict think tank. In their report, “The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia”, they state that Amnesty International follows a “non-systematic approach that includes opaque sourcing and frequent changes in the objects they measure.” Moreover, they list “failure to specify sources, unclear definitions, an erratic reporting template and a distorted portrayal of conflict dynamics” among the methodological problems with Amnesty International’s publications. Furthermore, the report accuses Amnesty International of “bias against the government relative to the guerrillas”. In the case of the Middle East, this tendency is manifested in Amnesty International’s favoring of Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority over Israel. The CRC study also found that Amnesty, under the leadership of Irene Khan, has adopted “double standards on human rights, a leftist political agenda, an unrealistic view on armed conflict, and propaganda against America and Israel."

In another report from that year, NGO-Monitor pointed out Amnesty International's failure to differentiate between terrorists--both Palestinian and in Hezbollah--and civilians.

The impression one gets from Amnesty International's haphazard and arbitrary criteria is that the group is not so much interested merely in upholding human rights per se but in hampering armed conflict as whole--by whatever means necessary.

That impression is reinforced by Dan Kosky of NGO-Monitor in an article in Haaretz about Amnesty International's report on Operation Cast Lead:

The report itself accuses Israel of having committed "war crimes" in Gaza, and subsequently calls for an international arms embargo. Amnesty also demands the same restrictions be placed on Hamas, yet this is entirely irrelevant for a terrorist organization with no official trade links. The real problem is that "Fueling Conflict" constitutes nothing more than an inventory of weapons used. There is no doubt that there were civilian casualties in Gaza, but Amnesty mistakenly treats this fact as proof of Israel's criminality, when it really is nothing of the sort. International law accepts civilian deaths as a tragic reality of war, particularly when fighting an enemy that has intentionally embedded itself in densely populated areas. The question of legality, however, rests upon whether an operation's expected casualties outweigh its perceived military advantage.

...Despite the inconvenient lack of evidence, Amnesty rules that Israel is guilty as charged and calls for an immediate "UN Security Council arms embargo on Israel." Almost half the report is devoted to detailing Israel's arms imports. Were Amnesty to focus solely on Israel's alleged use of controversial weapons, such as white phosphorus, the report might contribute to a valuable debate. Yet amazingly, it details Israel's procurement of aircraft, tanks, light weapons, ammunition and electronic equipment, all of which would presumably also be subject to Amnesty's suggested boycott. What emerges is an unspoken but shocking conclusion that in Amnesty's view, Israel is unfit to possess weapons and thus should be stripped of the right to self-defense.

Amnesty appears to subscribe to a fairy-tale worldview in which all non-combatant deaths and the use of all weapons under any circumstances are by definition immoral, wrong and illegal. Were the organization's stringent standards to be enforced, there would be no such thing as a just war and all democratic leaders who seek to defend their citizens against aggression and terrorism, as is their responsibility, would be deemed "war criminals."

While others see the path to peace in the Middle East as requiring extensive talks with all parties concerned, Amnesty International appears to believe all that is needed is to prevent access to the arms used in the conflict--indifferent to the fact that such an approach will affect only one side.

According to their website:

Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all.

A pity they do not work for the human right of self defense when it counts the most.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Amnesty International.