by Paul de Rooij
Any organization fighting torture and other human rights abuses deserves our support. A recognized leader in this fight is Amnesty International (AI), helping people escape with their lives or avoid torture for decades.
Given AI's track record and its role as a human rights monitor, one must be careful leveling criticism against it. But one can no longer be silent about AI's stance regarding Israel and Palestine.
This article analyzes Amnesty's entire public record and stance during the current intifada (Sep. 2000 thru Sep. 2002). It is an analysis of a meager record of 83 press releases and six reports . It reveals the following shortcomings and questions about its stance.
1. Trivializing Israeli violence
2. Why is there violence at all?
3. The human rights mantra--apolitical fence sitting
4. Transfer.
5. An astonishing report.
6. Evident bias
7. Adopting Israeli-centric language
8. The harmful
9. The Absurd
10. The questions
11. The semi-useful
12. Sharon
13. Israeli propaganda compliant
AI's approach will please the Israeli government and its supporters. AI's current stance not only doesn't offend pro-Israeli organizations, it doesn't call for effective action putting it on a collision course.
Full story...
1 comment:
I read a book about the daughter of the owner of gold fields in siberia and how the 1917 Russian Revolution finished them in Russia. She and her father ended up in London and he finally bought a skyscraper in New York around 1920.After WWII, this jewish girl went to Tel Aviv to help create the State of Israel. She had one son who started and ran Amnesty International. He turned around and became a Catholic and changed his name? I think their name was Benenson or something like that.
Well, the observation of this writer is true. I have always fealt that amnesty was a sort of spy agency of the Mosad.
Post a Comment