Three questions that would have demolished @AmnestyUSA's director at @Harvard_Law School ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, February 28, 2025

Three questions that would have demolished @AmnestyUSA's director at @Harvard_Law School

Paul O’Brien, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said military action is not a legally sufficient answer to accusations of genocide at a Harvard Law School talk Wednesday afternoon.

An HLS alum, O’Brien said he came to the Law School to preview a forthcoming article in the Harvard Human Rights Journal about laws surrounding genocide and their application to Israel’s war in Gaza.

“There can be multiple intents. A military actor who has legitimate military goals can intend the genocide in order to accomplish those goals,” O’Brien said at the talk, hosted by the HHRJ. “It can be a means to a military end.”

Based on this reading of human rights law, O’Brien and Amnesty International published a report in December that argued Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.

...According to O’Brien, Amnesty eventually established that Israel had “a disregard, and credibly, an intention to destroy the civilian population” in Gaza — a conclusion that allowed the organization to publish its findings.

I don't know if students were allowed to ask questions at the lecture. but here are the questions that should have been asked - that would have demolished O'Brien's entire talk.

1. Isn't it true that Amnesty's report used a definition of genocide that was not accepted by the majority of judges of the International Court of Justice? Your report called the ICJ opinion of what constitutes intent to be "overly cramped." In fact, Ireland asked the ICJ to broaden its own definition of intent of genocide when it joined South Africa's case. If you are using a non-standard definition, how can you declare Israel's actions to be genocide as lex lata, the law as it exists?

2. Isn't it true that Amnesty staffers internally and informally called the report the "genocide report" before it was even written, meaning that Amnesty intended to twist the facts - and ignore others - to reach a preconceived conclusion? This was stated in a letter by Jewish Amnesty staffers, including some senior employees. Are they lying?

In fact, according to your Harvard speech as reported, you said that the determination of Israel's intent to perform genocide was "a conclusion that allowed the organization to publish its findings" - does that mean that you wouldn't have published the report if it hadn't concluded that Israel was guilty of genocide? Wasn't this a predetermined conclusion?

3. The report in the Crimson says you hoped your talk would confirm the value of 'free expression' and 'reasonable debate' on difficult issues. Amnesty Israel - who, curiously, were not involved in researching or writing the report despite their obvious expertise in the region - wrote a very serious, reasoned and detailed response refuting the accusation of genocide. Instead of answering Amnesty Israel's points, Amnesty suspended the Israeli branch of the organization, saying that dissenting opinions threaten the "operational coherence" of the organization. How does that fit with your stated ideals of "free expression" and "reasonable debate"? Amnesty shut down the debate!

Moreover, Amnesty justified this suspension by invoking Article 34 of the Statute of Amnesty International. Yet Article 34 does not say it must protect the "operational coherence" of Amnesty, it says it must protect the "operation" of Amnesty - a completely different thing. Did Amnesty make up a new rule just to expel the meddlesome Israeli Jews?

As far as I can tell, the speech at Harvard does not even attempt to answer the many serious criticisms of the Amnesty report. O'Brien simply restates what the report says.

That is not the debate that O'Brien claims to value. On the contrary, Amnesty has done everything it can to shut down any dissenting opinions within its power. It acts exactly like the dictators that it is supposed to be exposing.