To read this article, click here.
"The name Amnesty International has become synonymous with human rights. The organization can rightly claim to have been a pioneer in defending prisoners of conscience, an accomplishment that has no doubt helped it attract some 1.8 million members worldwide. Yet, Amnesty’s treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict has long been troubling. Its statements about the Gaza operation were highly critical of Israel, and although its recent report highlighted Hamas’ brutal treatment of political opponents, this does not detract from the one-sided tone of Amnesty’s commentary. Last week, the organization released "Fueling Conflict," its first substantive report on the Gaza operation, which purports to analyze the legality of weapons used by both Israel and Hamas. Yet the report is tantamount to placing Israel on trial in a kangaroo court, where Amnesty plays both prosecutor and judge, providing a paucity of evidence in the process. "Fueling Conflict" should prompt Amnesty’s members, including those in Israel, to ask serious questions regarding the organization’s moral fiber in a world where warfare is increasingly complex. The blurring of lines between combatant and civilian requires that government decisions are judged with an understanding that the best choice is often the lesser of two evils." "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.""