The thing about Amnesty

As my readers know, I have spent a lot of time over the past month showing how Amnesty International is flatly lying about hundreds of people killed in last summer's Gaza war by claiming that they are civilian when they were not.

And I showed that Amnesty has refused to correct their claims even when I showed them in no uncertain terms.

Now, Amnesty's site says:

Before any statement, publication or report is issued, its text is closely reviewed to ensure it is factually accurate, politically impartial and consistent with Amnesty International's mission. When Amnesty International deals with allegations rather than undisputed facts, it makes this clear in its findings and may call for an investigation. If Amnesty International makes a mistake, it issues a correction.

Every single phrase here has been proven a lie, and you can follow the links to see the proof. It is indisputable. Amnesty's literature and its Gaza Platform tool is filled with lies and bias, they know it,  and they have chosen to let the lies stand rather than correct them and apologize.

I think I have shown that Amnesty is aware of my research. Dozens of tweets and hundreds of retweets to different Amnesty accounts have not all been missed. They have been read, as all tweets to Amnesty are read.

And Amnesty chooses to sweep its lies under the rug.

This is an organization that claims it is dedicated to truth and accuracy. This is an organization that claims that it is dedicated to impartiality.

But not a single Amnesty employee has denounced these outrages that go against everything Amnesty claims to stand for.

Not one Amnesty employee has had the moral courage to stand up and say, "This is not what my organization is about. If we screwed up, we should own up to it. If our employees are found to be biased, they should be removed as soon as possible. If we know that we lied, it is our responsibility to correct ourselves and to apologize to our donors and those who rely on us for accuracy and fairness."

Not one "courageous" Amnesty researcher is willing to "speak truth to power" and denounce the clear hypocrisy of Amnesty.

One would hope that the leaders of such an organization would he horrified by what I have shown. But the impression that one gets is that they look upon me not as a whistle-blower who is pointing out where they have covered up lies, but as an irritant who must be ignored - and they hope to God that no major media outlet will pick up on my research. They don't want to improve their organization as one would hope any competent leader would; they only want to protect it from people like me.

Ironically, when the truth comes out - and it inevitably will - Amnesty will lose everything. But its leaders act like despots trying to protect their power base rather than as humanitarians dedicated to improving the world.

Clearly, Amnesty's leaders  are part of the problem.

What does it say about a human rights organization when not one of its employees is willing to stand up for their own principles?  What does it say when its leaders would rather cover up evidence of Amnesty's bias rather than root it out?

It shows that  Amnesty has no principles at all.

Perhaps Amnesty does good work in other parts of the world. But by condoning and even highlighting the lies that I've shown, Amnesty has destroyed its credibility on every subject..

Their leaders' selfishness now will end up hurting them far worse later.