.@Amnesty says this house had no terrorists. Wrong again.

Amnesty International keeps on deceiving its readers to demonize Israel.

From its website pushing its new anti-Israel campaign that includes the Gaza Platform that I have shown to be filled with lies:

It is in big letters so it must be true!

Now, it is true that 25 family members were tragically killed. And I do not know if any of them were terrorists. But to say that the house had nothing to do with the fighting is not quite true.

There is one crucial fact that Amnesty, and Tawfiq Abu Jame, don't want you to know.

The house had a guest at the time of the bombing.

His name was Ahmed Suleiman Mahmoud Sahmoud.

And he was a commander for the Hamas Al Qassam Brigades.

Don't take my word for it. This was documented by B'Tselem.

Here is the "civilian" that Amnesty doesn't want to tell you about. (Full video here.)

Amnesty quotes a survivor as saying that "the house had nothing to do with the fighting" without noting that a Hamas commander (who received a huge funeral commensurate with his position) was positioned in the house, perhaps with the family's blessing or perhaps treating them like human shields.

Either way, Tawfiq wouldn't tell Amnesty the truth. If Sahmoud was invited into the house as a "guest," that means that the family supports Hamas and follows Hamas instructions to lie to NGOs  to demonize Israel. If  Sahmoud forced himself into the house, Tawfiq wouldn't tell the truth because he still lives in Gaza under Hamas rule.

But Amnesty takes him at his word and doesn't bother to fact-check his lies.

It is fair to ask whether the attack that killed 25 family members was proportionate to the presumed target of Ahmad Sahmoud. Israel does not have the right to violate the rules of war. If Israeli intelligence said that there was a command center or tunnel entrance or weapons cache then bombing the family home would not necessarily be a violation of the laws of war. It all depends on the specific circumstances and perceived military advantage. Those are the real laws of war, but Amnesty doesn't want you to know that.

Nevertheless, the IDF  should not act with impunity. The incident should be investigated.

And it is. By Israel.

The UNHRC Davis Report - which despite its bias did not say anything as egregiously false as Amnesty does - notes:

On 6 December 2014, the MAG reported that:

 “In reports received by the MAG Corps, and in correspondence from various NGOs, it was alleged that on 20 July 2014, 27 civilians were killed as a result of an IDF strike on the house of the Abu-Jama family in Khan Yunis. As a result, and in accordance with the MAG's investigation policy, the incident was referred to the FFAM. The factual findings and materials collated by the FFAM and presented to the MAG, indicated the existence of grounds for a reasonable suspicion that the incident involved a deviation from the rules and procedures applicable to IDF forces. As a result, the MAG has ordered a criminal investigation into the incident.”^*                     *  Military Advocate General. Up-date of December 2014 at: http://www.law.idf.il/163-6958-en/Patzar.aspx                 

Israel had a legitimate target. It may have acted against its own rules, however. It is opening a criminal investigation against its own army to determine what happened.

But Amnesty doesn't want you to know that either. They want you to believe that the IDF acts with impunity, that there are no checks and balances, and that its soldiers run wild and gleefully shoot Arabs for no reason without fear of prosecution.

They don't want you to know that the average Israeli commander know the laws of armed conflict better than anyone at Amnesty does.

Why would Amnesty purposefully ignore evidence that mitigates its charges against Israel that was documented by other groups like the UNRHC and B'Tselem?

The answer is in the question. Amnesty will ignore all evidence that exonerates or contextualizes Israel's actions in war or afterwards. It does not care about the truth.

Amnesty International has an agenda, and if the facts contradict that agenda, the facts must be suppressed.