Amnesty International, having been given multiple opportunities to respond when directly presented with evidence that it inaccurately presented a key figure in its “apartheid” report against Israel, has gone silent.
One seeking any more proof of the antisemitism behind much of the obscene accusations of Israel being an “apartheid” state need look no further than the new United Nations (“UN”) report that will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council (“UNHRC”) on March 24.
By labeling Israel as a “colonial occupier,” the Palestinians and their enablers at the UNHRC are using the same antisemitic strategy they frequently employ at UNESCO to delink Jews from their indigenous homeland and their holy sites.
Amnesty International has recently made headlines for its anti-Israel report. But as CAMERA tells the Jerusalem Post its not the first time that the NGO's shoddy and biased reporting has had destructive results.
Israel is right to snub the U.N. COI, and the U.S. – as well as all fair-minded democracies – need to step up and put an end to this blatant antisemitism coming from the U.N. It's deeply concerning that they would allow their U.N. funding to be used for an inherently anti-Semitic initiative.
While conflicting sources is a common phenomenon in journalism, it's not often that a journalist directly contradicts his own sources, passing them off as substantiation when they are just the opposite.
Amnesty International’s recent scandalous report accusing Israel of “apartheid,” as well as a similar report from Human Rights Watch a year ago, are unsurprisingly overflowing with falsehoods and bigotry. Many outstanding analysts have already thoroughly debunked each of these reports. What also must be addressed, however, is the surrounding context of this slander. Why are they being released now? What purpose are they supposed to serve?
Amnesty is counting on lazy journalists and politicians to pick up the report and wave it around, picking out a random quote a staffer found that suggests Israel is a racist endeavor. They also know too few journalists these days are willing and able to perform serious journalism and ask the tough questions...
