Amnesty Int’l’s distortion of humanitarian laws has become an art form - opinion
AMNESTY’S PRONOUNCEMENTS are routinely transcribed directly into media headlines, then cited verbatim in academic publications – without due care for the integrity of the claims they make, never mind the accuracy of their findings. There is something to be said about leading the blind, or blinding to lead.Munich Massacre and DW’s Farah Maraqa A German Litmus Test on Safeguarding Israeli Civilians
The issue here is the organization’s propensity to exploit its status in the media and academia to influence not only minds but policies. Rather than hold true to its self-proclaimed impartiality, Amnesty International has systematically taken very political positions, weaponizing human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the laws of armed conflicts to advance a private agenda, untrammeled by oversight.
The problem with the attack on Ukraine’s right to self-defense, protecting the very idea of the state’s sovereignty and independent identity, is the same as with the oversight of Amnesty’s use of imagery on their campaigns. It is set up to rebuke any rebuttal through the apparent, morally elevated self-portrayal of the organization, and our acceptance of their proclamation of infallibility.
Reports are built on anonymous tips and witness reports. None of the “facts” can be independently verified, yet we are called upon to accept them as truths. Truths withstand scrutiny… if indeed they are that!
It is pandering to the abominable to validate Putin’s criminal war narrative against Ukraine, his torment of Russians in the opposition, terror aggressions toward Israel– not to mention crimes committed against Palestinians, whether through indoctrination or physical violence, or the propagation of martyrdom by misguided ideologues the world over.
It is left to us now to admit, once and for all, that the rights organization has stretched the definition of “charity” to be, instead, a party to bloodshed and political radicalism.
Are German authorities speaking from both sides of their mouths about their obligations towards protecting the lives of Jewish Israeli civilians?David Singer: Biden and Blinken silent on Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine
With this month’s 50th anniversary of the Munich Olympics massacre, widespread publicity focused on belated German acknowledgement of the government’s failure to safeguard the lives of Israeli civilians competing on its soil. Simultaneously, far under the media radar, a German court decision emerged which, it seems, reprehensibly rejected the lives of Israeli civilians as worth protecting.
In the official commemoration of the Sept. 5, 1972 Palestinian Black September terror attack, in which 11 Israeli athletes and a police officer were killed, German President Walter Steinmeier addressed the victims’ families, seeking forgiveness for the “inadequate protection afforded to the Israeli athletes.” He also lamented the German authorities’ decades-long “obstruction, ignorance and injustice.” Notably, a compensation settlement between the bereaved family members and the German government was finally reached the previous week.
Meanwhile, Berlin-based pundit Farah Maraqa deemed Monday as “a day for celebrations” following a local labor court reportedly ruling that the termination of her employment as a journalist at German public media outlet Deutsche Welle was “legally unjustified.”
DW fired Jordanian-Palestinian Maraqa and six other Arab employees earlier this year at the conclusion of a two-month internal antisemitism probe. Last week, she and her lawyers claimed that the Berlin court ordered Germany’s public broadcaster to reinstate her and pay all legal expenses. (The court have not confirmed the information; Deutsche Welle, which only four days before had introduced a new Code of Conduct where it states its support of “the right of Israel to exist,” said it has “taken due notice of the ruling.”)
The Saudi plan’s author – Ali Shihabi - is a confidante of Saudi Arabia’s next King – Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. Shihabi’s Plan was published in Al Arabiya News – owned 60% by the Saudi Government.
This latest Saudi plan supersedes the 1981 and 2002 Saudi Peace Plans.
The rationale for creating the Saudi-proposed merged state as against the Biden-proposed brand new state was recently explained by Shihabi:
“We have seen from recent experience that state building is a virtually impossible task, particularly in a polarized environment so creating a “Palestinian State” from scratch is a fool’s errand. At the same time Jordan is a decently run country by regional standards and hence its government infrastructure can be used to incorporate 'Palestine' which will instantly have a globally recognized and respected government with all the basics like security, government bureaucracy etc.”
Shihabi’s two-state solution – if implemented – would consign Biden’s two-state solution – “a fool’s errand” says Shihabi - to the diplomatic graveyard.
Significantly - Palestinian Authority President Abbas, Jordan’s King Abdullah and Hamas leaders have not voiced any objection to the Saudi proposal since its June publication. Rejection by any of them would have stopped the Saudi plan in its tracks.
I sought State Department clarification on 6 September:
“I refer to the Peace Plan emanating from Saudi Arabia published in the Al Arabiya Times on 8 June 2022 proposing the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of the West Bank into one territorial entity to be called the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine (Saudi Plan):
Could you please advise in relation to Secretary of State Blinken:
1. When he first became aware of the Saudi plan?
2. Has he commented on the Saudi plan since its release on 8 June 2022?
3. If so – when and where were such comments published?
4. If he has made no comment – would he like to make any comment on the Saudi plan that I can publish verbatim and attribute to him in an article I am writing on the Saudi Plan?
I would appreciate a reply within the next 72 hours.”
The State Department has yet to reply.
Biden and Blinken’s silence is baffling.