THE ZIONIZATION OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

The Zionization of Amnesty International.
Paul de rooij has produced a devastating critique of the pro-semitic bias at the heart of amnesty international, one of the most respected non-governmental organizations in the western world. "Given the current escalation of Israeli depredations in Gaza and the daily US bombings of Falluja, it is interesting to examine Amnesty International's (AI) statements on the situation. AI is widely viewed as an authority on human rights issues, and thus it is of interest to analyze its output on these recent events. Careful scrutiny of AI's record reveals that, its typical response to the daily obscene deeds by either Israeli or US armies is a few barely audible ruminations with an occasional lame rebuke. The impotence of these responses raises many questions."

"Consider the title of a recent press release: "Israeli army must respect human rights in its operations". According to AI, the Israeli depredations on occupied land are acceptable as long as they "respect" human rights. This is analogous to recommending that a rapist should practice safe sex. It is also difficult to imagine that a military occupation could ever be imposed while observing "human rights".

"Consider the context. During September 2004 the Israeli army killed on average 3.7 Palestinians per day; it injured an average of 19.3 p/day; it demolished many houses affecting the lives of thousands; it has transformed vast areas of Gaza into a denuded moonscape. It is also clear that these gruesome statistics will be worse in October. The Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz openly states that the Palestinians should be punished, and the measures advocated entail collective punishment. The entire Palestinian population is taken hostage; pressure is exerted on them as a whole. Ethnic Cleansing is on going, and the construction of the grotesque wall stands as proof of the criminality of this policy."

"Given the devastation inflicted by the Israeli army and clear violations of international law, one would expect at least a tiny condemnation. However, this is the extent of AI's reaction: "[AI] is concerned that the Israeli army's use of excessive force in this latest incursion in the Gaza Strip will result in further loss of lives and wanton destruction of Palestinian homes and property. Reprisals against protected persons and property are prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and Israel is obliged to ensure that any measures taken to protect the lives of Israeli civilians are consistent with its obligations to respect human rights and international humanitarian law."

"In May 2004 AI issued a press release headed "AI condemns murder of woman and her four daughters by Palestinian gunmen." The body of the text contains the following condemnation: "Such deliberate attacks against civilians, which have been widespread, systematic and in furtherance of a stated policy to attack the civilian population, constitute crimes against humanity, as defined by Article 7 (1) and (2)(a) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal.""

"So, when Palestinians kill some civilians, then it constitutes a "crime against humanity" - one of the most serious crimes under international law, and a precursor to genocide. But, when Israel kills far more civilians "in furtherance of a stated policy" (the phrasing AI used against Palestinians) to "exact a price" (to use the words of Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz), all that AI can do is to wring its hands and worry about "the Israeli army's use of excessive force". Thus, we see that AI does not hesitate to use against Palestinians terms, such as "crime against humanity", which it has never unambiguously leveled against Israel."

"During the second intifada, AI has not issued any statement about settler violence."

"AI is not an anti-war organization, and this stance creates numerous contradictions. With the onset of the US war against Iraq, it issued statements about the means the US would employ in warfare, but curiously, AI didn't condemn the war! This is particularly curious given that the war was one of aggression and thus constitutes a supreme international crime."

"The situation may be awful in Darfur, and the measure suggested may be warranted. However, the curious aspect of this statement is that AI has never called on the UN or any other body to impose an arms embargo on Israel, although there are ample grounds for such a recommendation."

Paul de rooij concludes, "Anyone concerned with justice for the Palestinian cause or seeking to end the obscene war in Iraq will be disappointed with Amnesty International's stance. It is no use appreciating the bits of its reports that are useful; the problem is that its overall position on key issues is at best contradictory. Many of the well-intentioned and idealistic volunteers working on AI's campaigns may be wasting their efforts given that the AI framework adopts a blinkered understanding of the problems. Donating to AI doesn't translate into effective action for these causes, and given AI's record, the Palestinians certainly cannot expect fair coverage or representation. Will AI ever clearly and categorically condemn Israel for the large number of killings and the havoc and destruction it has caused in Jabalya or Beit Hanoun? Don't count on it. Each Israeli assault on Palestinian refugee camps, each US bombing of cities in Iraq, and each assassination of yet more Palestinians or Iraqis reveals AI's dubious stance. Today, most AI pronouncements range between moral flatulence and moral fraudulence."

The reason for the stance adopted by amnesty international has been provided by francis boyle (Professor of International Law at Univ. of Illinois Champaign) "When I was on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International USA near the end of my second term in 1990-92, we received the authority to call for an arms embargo against major human rights violators, which Israel clearly qualified for at the time and still does - even under United States domestic law. Of course no one at AI was going to do so because pro-Israel supporters were major funders of Amnesty International USA, which in turn was a major funder of Amnesty International in London. He who pays the piper calls the tune - especially at AIUSA Headquarters in New York and at AI Headquarters in London." (Paul de Rooij ‘Double Standards and Curious Silences’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij10132004.html October 13, 2004).

There could hardly be a clearer link than that between the funds provided by zionists and the zionist loving amnesty international. By being so critical of many terrible states and by saying little about the zionist state, the impression created by amnesty international is that there is little wrong with the zionist state’s continual invasion of palestine and its oppression of palestinians. The zionist backers of amnesty international could not expect the organization to come out with a completely fictitious report saying the zionist state was committing no political crimes. However, what these zionist backers got from amnesty international was something equally as good. By not publicizing the crimes committed by the zionist state, amnesty international was implying the zionist state was committing no crimes. After all, everyone in the western world knows that amnesty international has such integrity it investigates all cases of state oppression as thoroughly and impartially as possible. In other words, by discouraging amnesty international from telling the truth about the prevalent and persistent crimes being carried out by the zionist state, these zionist backers purchased a silent seal of approval for the zionist state.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
"When the attack (the second gulf war) was launched, stern warnings were issued to all the 'belligerents' by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International [...], reminding them of their duties under the laws and customs of war. But neither said a single word about the illegality of the war itself or the supreme criminal responsibility under international law of the countries that had started it." (Paul de Rooij ‘Double Standards and Curious Silences’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij10132004.html October 13, 2004).

Cleveland Indy Media Center