On Wednesday, Amnesty International released a report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza – a term so gravely heavy with historical weight that it should never be invoked lightly. By Thursday, even Amnesty International’s own Israeli branch had rejected the findings, stating that the evidence “had not been sufficiently substantiated.”
This rare internal dissent underscores that the report is less of a fact-based investigation than a politically motivated indictment.
Let’s be clear: Genocide is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, requiring proof of intent to destroy a people. Amnesty’s report doesn’t even come close. Instead, it relies on numbers provided by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, which Amnesty Monitor criticized for failing to “distinguish between civilians and combatants.”
According to Amnesty, some 42,000 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict – a number that strains credulity and is presented without transparency or critical verification.
Cherry-picking the facts
Amnesty cherry-picks incidents to fit its predetermined narrative. Out of thousands of airstrikes conducted in Gaza, the report examines just 15, alleging civilian casualties with no military justification. It disregards Hamas’s deliberate use of civilian infrastructure – homes, schools, and hospitals – as shields for its operations. The IDF, in contrast, issued evacuation warnings and facilitated the transfer of “1.1 million tons of aid into Gaza” while establishing humanitarian corridors.
Yet these efforts are conveniently ignored by Amnesty, as they undermine the NGO’s claim of “genocidal intent.”
The report also accuses Israel of creating “conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction” through its blockade of Gaza. Yet this claim collapses under scrutiny. While Gaza’s civilians have endured hardship, the blockade exists to prevent weapons smuggling. Israel’s measures, including the delivery of humanitarian aid and vaccinations for Gazans, stand in stark contrast to the narrative of calculated destruction. The report omitted these facts, raising questions about Amnesty’s objectivity.
The most damning rebuke came from Amnesty Israel itself. The Israeli branch, often critical of Israeli policies, distanced itself from the report. While Amnesty Israel believes that there is a high death toll of civilians in the Gaza Strip and that the Israeli response roused suspicions of possible widespread international law violations, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, it did not believe that the threshold of proof for the crime of genocide had been met.
“Based on our analysis, put together in consultation with external experts,” it said on Thursday, “many of us have doubts regarding the possibility of proving unequivocally… the element of intent.” This rejection of the genocide accusation highlights the recklessness of the global organization’s claims.
Undermining credibility
Amnesty International’s misuse of the term “genocide” undermines its credibility and trivializes the suffering of actual genocide victims. From the Holocaust to the Rwandan and Yazidi genocides, the term carries a historical and moral weight that should never be wielded irresponsibly.
The timing of this report is equally telling. It comes as Israel continues to recover from the October 7 massacre perpetrated by Hamas: the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Amnesty International, which condemned Israel’s actions so swiftly, has yet to produce a comprehensive report on Hamas’s atrocities, including its use of human shields and indiscriminate rocket fire targeting civilians.
NGO Monitor said before the report’s publication that the announcement used selective evidence to come to its conclusions. The group highlighted how casting the humanitarian effort of evacuation orders as genocidal contradicted demands that Israel take precautions to avoid civilian deaths in combat.
This report is not about justice or accountability – it is about vilifying Israel. By turning a blind eye to Hamas’s crimes while condemning Israel for defending itself, Amnesty exposes its bias and forfeits its moral authority. The International Legal Forum pointed out that the report is “replete with malicious lies, gross distortions of truth, and fabrications of law.”
If Amnesty International wishes to salvage its reputation, it must retract this report and apologize for its reckless accusations. Human rights organizations must uphold fairness, impartiality, and truth – not inflame tensions with baseless claims. The term “genocide” should never be used as a rhetorical cudgel, and Amnesty’s decision to do so is an insult to both the victims of real genocides and to the truth itself.
Israel’s critics should remember this: The Jewish state will always be held to a higher standard and will not shy away from scrutiny. But reckless accusations like these do nothing to protect civilians or promote peace. Instead, they encourage extremists and deepen divisions.
