The killing goes on...

[toastman]

Of course that question is never answered.

Once a target is identified, the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism prepares a detailed "administrative record," which is a compilation of information, typically including both classified and open sources information, demonstrating that the statutory criteria for designation have been satisfied. If the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, decides to make the designation, United States Congress is notified of the Secretary's intent to designate the organization and given seven days to review the designation, as the INA requires. Upon the expiration of the seven-day waiting period, notice of the designation is published in the Federal Register, at which point the designation takes effect. An organization designated as an FTO may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the designation is published in the Federal Register.

Legal criteria for designation

(Reflecting Amendments to Section 219 of the INA in the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act)
It must be a foreign organization.
The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d) (2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.


here; it's from Wiki; NOT the best source; but i doubt it matters to you; your really looking only for a reason to engage in moral relativism anyway. This should be enough to keep you crying for a while

Yeah, we know all of the monkey motions, but what have they done to receive this name calling?

Why do you always insist on playing stupid?

 

[bedowin62]

it's pretty funny; posters like toastman; engaging in circular logic and projecting that onto others.

of course it's the opposite of what you claim; Israel bombs them in retaliation for some act of terror; actually ACT OF WAR; since that is what a rocket across a border is considered.


you want to whine that the respone isnt proportional; like a baby and hypocrite.

go into a bar and start talking trash; see how far you get crying that the response was disportional when your jaw is broken

 

[toastman]

Once a target is identified, the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism prepares a detailed "administrative record," which is a compilation of information, typically including both classified and open sources information, demonstrating that the statutory criteria for designation have been satisfied. If the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, decides to make the designation, United States Congress is notified of the Secretary's intent to designate the organization and given seven days to review the designation, as the INA requires. Upon the expiration of the seven-day waiting period, notice of the designation is published in the Federal Register, at which point the designation takes effect. An organization designated as an FTO may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the designation is published in the Federal Register.

Legal criteria for designation

(Reflecting Amendments to Section 219 of the INA in the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act)
It must be a foreign organization.
The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d) (2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.


here; it's from Wiki; NOT the best source; but i doubt it matters to you; your really looking only for a reason to engage in moral relativism anyway. This should be enough to keep you crying for a while

Yeah, we know all of the monkey motions, but what have they done to receive this name calling?

seriously idiot?

i mean did you come here to play ignorant and waste time?

you want a list of activities that are considered terror-supporting that HAMAS OR Hezbollah engage in or support with money?

ok

He does it all the time.

 

[bedowin62]

please excuse me; i was referring to the anti-Israel poster playing ignorant; i think that poster is P F Tinmore; not toasterman

sorry bout that

 

[Victory67]

Because Amnesty is biased against Israel. That is very well-known and I am surprised you didn't know that.

Amnesty International criticizes many nations.

Not just Israel.

 

[toastman]

it's pretty funny; posters like toastman; engaging in circular logic and projecting that onto others.

of course it's the opposite of what you claim; Israel bombs them in retaliation for some act of terror; actually ACT OF WAR; since that is what a rocket across a border is considered.


you want to whine that the respone isnt proportional; like a baby and hypocrite.

go into a bar and start talking trash; see how far you get crying that the response was disportional when your jaw is broken

Huh?

 

[toastman]

please excuse me; i was referring to the anti-Israel poster playing ignorant; i think that poster is P F Tinmore; not toasterman

sorry bout that

No problem

 

[natstew]

Amnesty International?
By using this anti Israel, Pro Palestinian Terrorist organization you destroy your own credibility.

 

[bedowin62]

Because Amnesty is biased against Israel. That is very well-known and I am surprised you didn't know that.

Amnesty International criticizes many nations.

Not just Israel.

just because they criticize others; doesnt mean they arent guilty of a bias against Israel

 

[toastman]

Because Amnesty is biased against Israel. That is very well-known and I am surprised you didn't know that.

Amnesty International criticizes many nations.

Not just Israel.

just because they criticize others; doesnt mean they arent guilty of a bias against Israel

 

[Indeependent]

Because Amnesty is biased against Israel. That is very well-known and I am surprised you didn't know that.

Amnesty International criticizes many nations.

Not just Israel.

It's a good thing I've trained my wife not to criticize me.

 

[Victory67]

AI is critical of many nations.

But only Israel thinks they are unfairly biased against them.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Criticism related to Amnesty's criticism of Israel[edit]

Elliott Abrams, writing about the November 2012 Israeli military response in Gaza, says that AI treats "Hamas and other terrorist groups" "with an 'evenhandedness' that bespeaks deep biases," citing NGO Monitor's detailed research.[23]

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticised the May 2012 report on administrative detention saying it was "one sided,” and “not particularly serious,” and "that it seemed little more than a public relations gimmick.” Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor, said that the report was tied to the recent Palestinian hunger strikes and that AI “jumped on the bandwagon to help their Palestinian allies.”[24] Steinberg also pointed out that one of the researchers, Deborah Hyams was not a neutral party, saying that “Hyams has volunteered as a ‘human shield’ in Beit Jala (near Bethlehem) to deter Israeli military responses to gunfire and mortars targeting Jewish civilians in Jerusalem,” and that “in 2008 she signed a letter claiming Israel is 'a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.'[25] The Israeli embassy in London called AI “ridiculous”. AI admitted that this report “is not intended to address violations of detainees’ rights by the Palestinian Authority, or the Hamas de facto administration. These violations have been and will continue to be addressed separately by the organisation”.[26]

In May 2012, NGO Monitor criticized AI's 2012 World Report in a few areas:
AI criticized Israel's blockade on Gaza without mentioning that the blockade was in place "to stop the smuggling of weapons and rockets used to target Israeli citizens." NGO Monitor continued and said that "UN Secretary General’s Palmer Committee declared in September 2011 that the blockade is legal under international law."

AI "failed to mention the thousands of tons of goods provided by Israel to Gaza each week."
NGO Monitor also pointed out that AI's report "mentions Israel 137 times, while making only 74 mentions of the Syrian regime," during a year in which thousands of people have been killed by the Syrian government.[27]

AI allowed a speaking event to take place in London in May 2011, organized by the magazine Middle East Monitor Online (MEMO) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Much controversy surrounded this event since one of the speakers included Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. In the past, Atwan has said that "he would “dance with delight” in Trafalgar Square if Iran attacked Israel, "and that the terrorist attack on the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, in which eight students were killed, “was justified” as it was responsible for “hatching Israeli extremists and fundamentalists.” Amnesty responded by saying that "while we did have concerns about the way the event had originally been organized, these have been resolved."[28]

AI also allowed a speaking event to take place in January 2012, which included a speaker who is viewed as anti-Israel. UK’s Zionist Federation said that the speaker "goes beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior" and asked that the event either not take place or that a pro-Israel speaker be allowed to attend as well. In addition, NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg said that the speaker's "intense hatred directed at Israel, which is the embodiment of Jewish sovereign equality in the world, is entirely inconsistent with the universal values that Amnesty claims to promote. If Amnesty seeks to restore its tarnished moral credentials, it must end this cooperation, and join in denouncing White’s anti-Israel campaigns."[29]

Some people have criticized AI of promoting an unbalanced and excessive focus on Israel. The American Jewish Congress asserts that AI's criticism of Israel distorts the law of war by "read[ing] the law of war as if it was a law banning war", and misinterprets the Geneva Conventions with regard to the issue of proportionality in war.[30] Yael Beck and Merav Fima of NGO Monitor, a Pro-Israel NGO, claim the AI has an "obsession with Israel" and "persistently condemns Israel while ignoring suffering elsewhere".[31]
Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel, is very critical of AI and their comparison of Israel to nations such as Sudan and other offenders of human rights. Amnesty International has consistently called on Israel to bring any officer suspected of human rights violations to justice and to remove its settlements in the West Bank. It has also opposed "discrimination" against Arab citizens of Israel, and claims that the Law of Return and Entry into Israel Law are discriminatory, as they grant automatic citizenship to Jews worldwide, while denying Palestinian refugees the right of return. It has also opposed the blockade of the Gaza Strip, calling it "collective punishment".[citation needed]

In 2010 Frank Johansson, the chairman of Amnesty International-Finland called Israel a "nilkkimaa," a derogatory term variously translated as "scum state", "creep state" or "punk state."[32][33] Johansson stood by his statement, saying that they were based on Israel's "repeated flouting of international law", and his own personal experiences with Israelis. When asked by a journalist if any other country on earth that could be described in these terms, he said that he could not think of any, although some individual “Russian officials” could be so described.[33] According to Israeli professor Gerald M. Steinberg of NGO Monitor “Amnesty International has promoted an intense anti-Israel ideology, resulting in statements like these."[33]

In November 2012, Amnesty UK began a disciplinary process against staffer Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty UK campaigns manager, because of a posting on his Twitter account, said to be anti-semitic, regarding three Jewish members of parliament and the Israeli military operation in Gaza where he wrote “Louise Ellman, Robert Halfon and Luciana Berger walk into a bar…each orders a round of B52s … #Gaza”. Amnesty International UK said “the matter has been referred to our internal and confidential processes.” Amnesty’s campaigns director Tim Hancock said, “We do not believe that humour is appropriate in the current circumstances, particularly from our own members of staff.” An Amnesty International UK spokesperson later said the charity had decided that “the tweet in question was ill-advised and had the potential to be offensive and inflammatory but was not racist or antisemitic". [34][35][36]

Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course that question is never answered.

No. Some insults, as usual. Referring to me as a liberal when I'm not, as usual. And a total ignoring ofthe point that in this case was these are not just organizations but governmental organizations as they have won elections, as usual.

Of course these organizations would be much more obvious goverments if Israel didn't bomb them back to the stone age whenever they feel the need to flex their muscles, and then act with with incredulity whenever any meagre and symbolic attempt at retaliation comes their way and all of their fansboys around the globe cry anti-semitism collectively point at Auschwitz as more innocents die.

Please tell us, why does Israel bomb them?

Because they are opposed to Israel stealing their land.

 

[Indeependent]

No. Some insults, as usual. Referring to me as a liberal when I'm not, as usual. And a total ignoring ofthe point that in this case was these are not just organizations but governmental organizations as they have won elections, as usual.

Of course these organizations would be much more obvious goverments if Israel didn't bomb them back to the stone age whenever they feel the need to flex their muscles, and then act with with incredulity whenever any meagre and symbolic attempt at retaliation comes their way and all of their fansboys around the globe cry anti-semitism collectively point at Auschwitz as more innocents die.

Please tell us, why does Israel bomb them?

Because they are opposed to Israel stealing their land.

And the Gazans fire rockets on Israel because?...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Criticism related to Amnesty's criticism of Israel[edit]

Elliott Abrams, writing about the November 2012 Israeli military response in Gaza, says that AI treats "Hamas and other terrorist groups" "with an 'evenhandedness' that bespeaks deep biases," citing NGO Monitor's detailed research.[23]

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticised the May 2012 report on administrative detention saying it was "one sided,” and “not particularly serious,” and "that it seemed little more than a public relations gimmick.” Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor, said that the report was tied to the recent Palestinian hunger strikes and that AI “jumped on the bandwagon to help their Palestinian allies.”[24] Steinberg also pointed out that one of the researchers, Deborah Hyams was not a neutral party, saying that “Hyams has volunteered as a ‘human shield’ in Beit Jala (near Bethlehem) to deter Israeli military responses to gunfire and mortars targeting Jewish civilians in Jerusalem,” and that “in 2008 she signed a letter claiming Israel is 'a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.'[25] The Israeli embassy in London called AI “ridiculous”. AI admitted that this report “is not intended to address violations of detainees’ rights by the Palestinian Authority, or the Hamas de facto administration. These violations have been and will continue to be addressed separately by the organisation”.[26]

In May 2012, NGO Monitor criticized AI's 2012 World Report in a few areas:
AI criticized Israel's blockade on Gaza without mentioning that the blockade was in place "to stop the smuggling of weapons and rockets used to target Israeli citizens." NGO Monitor continued and said that "UN Secretary General’s Palmer Committee declared in September 2011 that the blockade is legal under international law."

AI "failed to mention the thousands of tons of goods provided by Israel to Gaza each week."
NGO Monitor also pointed out that AI's report "mentions Israel 137 times, while making only 74 mentions of the Syrian regime," during a year in which thousands of people have been killed by the Syrian government.[27]

AI allowed a speaking event to take place in London in May 2011, organized by the magazine Middle East Monitor Online (MEMO) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Much controversy surrounded this event since one of the speakers included Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. In the past, Atwan has said that "he would “dance with delight” in Trafalgar Square if Iran attacked Israel, "and that the terrorist attack on the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, in which eight students were killed, “was justified” as it was responsible for “hatching Israeli extremists and fundamentalists.” Amnesty responded by saying that "while we did have concerns about the way the event had originally been organized, these have been resolved."[28]

AI also allowed a speaking event to take place in January 2012, which included a speaker who is viewed as anti-Israel. UK’s Zionist Federation said that the speaker "goes beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior" and asked that the event either not take place or that a pro-Israel speaker be allowed to attend as well. In addition, NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg said that the speaker's "intense hatred directed at Israel, which is the embodiment of Jewish sovereign equality in the world, is entirely inconsistent with the universal values that Amnesty claims to promote. If Amnesty seeks to restore its tarnished moral credentials, it must end this cooperation, and join in denouncing White’s anti-Israel campaigns."[29]

Some people have criticized AI of promoting an unbalanced and excessive focus on Israel. The American Jewish Congress asserts that AI's criticism of Israel distorts the law of war by "read[ing] the law of war as if it was a law banning war", and misinterprets the Geneva Conventions with regard to the issue of proportionality in war.[30] Yael Beck and Merav Fima of NGO Monitor, a Pro-Israel NGO, claim the AI has an "obsession with Israel" and "persistently condemns Israel while ignoring suffering elsewhere".[31]
Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel, is very critical of AI and their comparison of Israel to nations such as Sudan and other offenders of human rights. Amnesty International has consistently called on Israel to bring any officer suspected of human rights violations to justice and to remove its settlements in the West Bank. It has also opposed "discrimination" against Arab citizens of Israel, and claims that the Law of Return and Entry into Israel Law are discriminatory, as they grant automatic citizenship to Jews worldwide, while denying Palestinian refugees the right of return. It has also opposed the blockade of the Gaza Strip, calling it "collective punishment".[citation needed]

In 2010 Frank Johansson, the chairman of Amnesty International-Finland called Israel a "nilkkimaa," a derogatory term variously translated as "scum state", "creep state" or "punk state."[32][33] Johansson stood by his statement, saying that they were based on Israel's "repeated flouting of international law", and his own personal experiences with Israelis. When asked by a journalist if any other country on earth that could be described in these terms, he said that he could not think of any, although some individual “Russian officials” could be so described.[33] According to Israeli professor Gerald M. Steinberg of NGO Monitor “Amnesty International has promoted an intense anti-Israel ideology, resulting in statements like these."[33]

In November 2012, Amnesty UK began a disciplinary process against staffer Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty UK campaigns manager, because of a posting on his Twitter account, said to be anti-semitic, regarding three Jewish members of parliament and the Israeli military operation in Gaza where he wrote “Louise Ellman, Robert Halfon and Luciana Berger walk into a bar…each orders a round of B52s … #Gaza”. Amnesty International UK said “the matter has been referred to our internal and confidential processes.” Amnesty’s campaigns director Tim Hancock said, “We do not believe that humour is appropriate in the current circumstances, particularly from our own members of staff.” An Amnesty International UK spokesperson later said the charity had decided that “the tweet in question was ill-advised and had the potential to be offensive and inflammatory but was not racist or antisemitic". [34][35][36]

Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elliott Abrams?

Wasn't he convicted of lying to congress?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Criticism related to Amnesty's criticism of Israel[edit]

Elliott Abrams, writing about the November 2012 Israeli military response in Gaza, says that AI treats "Hamas and other terrorist groups" "with an 'evenhandedness' that bespeaks deep biases," citing NGO Monitor's detailed research.[23]

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticised the May 2012 report on administrative detention saying it was "one sided,” and “not particularly serious,” and "that it seemed little more than a public relations gimmick.” Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor, said that the report was tied to the recent Palestinian hunger strikes and that AI “jumped on the bandwagon to help their Palestinian allies.”[24] Steinberg also pointed out that one of the researchers, Deborah Hyams was not a neutral party, saying that “Hyams has volunteered as a ‘human shield’ in Beit Jala (near Bethlehem) to deter Israeli military responses to gunfire and mortars targeting Jewish civilians in Jerusalem,” and that “in 2008 she signed a letter claiming Israel is 'a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.'[25] The Israeli embassy in London called AI “ridiculous”. AI admitted that this report “is not intended to address violations of detainees’ rights by the Palestinian Authority, or the Hamas de facto administration. These violations have been and will continue to be addressed separately by the organisation”.[26]

In May 2012, NGO Monitor criticized AI's 2012 World Report in a few areas:
AI criticized Israel's blockade on Gaza without mentioning that the blockade was in place "to stop the smuggling of weapons and rockets used to target Israeli citizens." NGO Monitor continued and said that "UN Secretary General’s Palmer Committee declared in September 2011 that the blockade is legal under international law."

AI "failed to mention the thousands of tons of goods provided by Israel to Gaza each week."
NGO Monitor also pointed out that AI's report "mentions Israel 137 times, while making only 74 mentions of the Syrian regime," during a year in which thousands of people have been killed by the Syrian government.[27]

AI allowed a speaking event to take place in London in May 2011, organized by the magazine Middle East Monitor Online (MEMO) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Much controversy surrounded this event since one of the speakers included Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. In the past, Atwan has said that "he would “dance with delight” in Trafalgar Square if Iran attacked Israel, "and that the terrorist attack on the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, in which eight students were killed, “was justified” as it was responsible for “hatching Israeli extremists and fundamentalists.” Amnesty responded by saying that "while we did have concerns about the way the event had originally been organized, these have been resolved."[28]

AI also allowed a speaking event to take place in January 2012, which included a speaker who is viewed as anti-Israel. UK’s Zionist Federation said that the speaker "goes beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior" and asked that the event either not take place or that a pro-Israel speaker be allowed to attend as well. In addition, NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg said that the speaker's "intense hatred directed at Israel, which is the embodiment of Jewish sovereign equality in the world, is entirely inconsistent with the universal values that Amnesty claims to promote. If Amnesty seeks to restore its tarnished moral credentials, it must end this cooperation, and join in denouncing White’s anti-Israel campaigns."[29]

Some people have criticized AI of promoting an unbalanced and excessive focus on Israel. The American Jewish Congress asserts that AI's criticism of Israel distorts the law of war by "read[ing] the law of war as if it was a law banning war", and misinterprets the Geneva Conventions with regard to the issue of proportionality in war.[30] Yael Beck and Merav Fima of NGO Monitor, a Pro-Israel NGO, claim the AI has an "obsession with Israel" and "persistently condemns Israel while ignoring suffering elsewhere".[31]
Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel, is very critical of AI and their comparison of Israel to nations such as Sudan and other offenders of human rights. Amnesty International has consistently called on Israel to bring any officer suspected of human rights violations to justice and to remove its settlements in the West Bank. It has also opposed "discrimination" against Arab citizens of Israel, and claims that the Law of Return and Entry into Israel Law are discriminatory, as they grant automatic citizenship to Jews worldwide, while denying Palestinian refugees the right of return. It has also opposed the blockade of the Gaza Strip, calling it "collective punishment".[citation needed]

In 2010 Frank Johansson, the chairman of Amnesty International-Finland called Israel a "nilkkimaa," a derogatory term variously translated as "scum state", "creep state" or "punk state."[32][33] Johansson stood by his statement, saying that they were based on Israel's "repeated flouting of international law", and his own personal experiences with Israelis. When asked by a journalist if any other country on earth that could be described in these terms, he said that he could not think of any, although some individual “Russian officials” could be so described.[33] According to Israeli professor Gerald M. Steinberg of NGO Monitor “Amnesty International has promoted an intense anti-Israel ideology, resulting in statements like these."[33]

In November 2012, Amnesty UK began a disciplinary process against staffer Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty UK campaigns manager, because of a posting on his Twitter account, said to be anti-semitic, regarding three Jewish members of parliament and the Israeli military operation in Gaza where he wrote “Louise Ellman, Robert Halfon and Luciana Berger walk into a bar…each orders a round of B52s … #Gaza”. Amnesty International UK said “the matter has been referred to our internal and confidential processes.” Amnesty’s campaigns director Tim Hancock said, “We do not believe that humour is appropriate in the current circumstances, particularly from our own members of staff.” An Amnesty International UK spokesperson later said the charity had decided that “the tweet in question was ill-advised and had the potential to be offensive and inflammatory but was not racist or antisemitic". [34][35][36]

Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elliott Abrams?

Wasn't he convicted of lying to congress?

It seems like he is pretty much spot-on with his comments about Amnesty International though.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Criticism related to Amnesty's criticism of Israel[edit]

Elliott Abrams, writing about the November 2012 Israeli military response in Gaza, says that AI treats "Hamas and other terrorist groups" "with an 'evenhandedness' that bespeaks deep biases," citing NGO Monitor's detailed research.[23]

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticised the May 2012 report on administrative detention saying it was "one sided,” and “not particularly serious,” and "that it seemed little more than a public relations gimmick.” Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor, said that the report was tied to the recent Palestinian hunger strikes and that AI “jumped on the bandwagon to help their Palestinian allies.”[24] Steinberg also pointed out that one of the researchers, Deborah Hyams was not a neutral party, saying that “Hyams has volunteered as a ‘human shield’ in Beit Jala (near Bethlehem) to deter Israeli military responses to gunfire and mortars targeting Jewish civilians in Jerusalem,” and that “in 2008 she signed a letter claiming Israel is 'a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.'[25] The Israeli embassy in London called AI “ridiculous”. AI admitted that this report “is not intended to address violations of detainees’ rights by the Palestinian Authority, or the Hamas de facto administration. These violations have been and will continue to be addressed separately by the organisation”.[26]

In May 2012, NGO Monitor criticized AI's 2012 World Report in a few areas:
AI criticized Israel's blockade on Gaza without mentioning that the blockade was in place "to stop the smuggling of weapons and rockets used to target Israeli citizens." NGO Monitor continued and said that "UN Secretary General’s Palmer Committee declared in September 2011 that the blockade is legal under international law."

AI "failed to mention the thousands of tons of goods provided by Israel to Gaza each week."
NGO Monitor also pointed out that AI's report "mentions Israel 137 times, while making only 74 mentions of the Syrian regime," during a year in which thousands of people have been killed by the Syrian government.[27]

AI allowed a speaking event to take place in London in May 2011, organized by the magazine Middle East Monitor Online (MEMO) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Much controversy surrounded this event since one of the speakers included Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. In the past, Atwan has said that "he would “dance with delight” in Trafalgar Square if Iran attacked Israel, "and that the terrorist attack on the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, in which eight students were killed, “was justified” as it was responsible for “hatching Israeli extremists and fundamentalists.” Amnesty responded by saying that "while we did have concerns about the way the event had originally been organized, these have been resolved."[28]

AI also allowed a speaking event to take place in January 2012, which included a speaker who is viewed as anti-Israel. UK’s Zionist Federation said that the speaker "goes beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior" and asked that the event either not take place or that a pro-Israel speaker be allowed to attend as well. In addition, NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg said that the speaker's "intense hatred directed at Israel, which is the embodiment of Jewish sovereign equality in the world, is entirely inconsistent with the universal values that Amnesty claims to promote. If Amnesty seeks to restore its tarnished moral credentials, it must end this cooperation, and join in denouncing White’s anti-Israel campaigns."[29]

Some people have criticized AI of promoting an unbalanced and excessive focus on Israel. The American Jewish Congress asserts that AI's criticism of Israel distorts the law of war by "read[ing] the law of war as if it was a law banning war", and misinterprets the Geneva Conventions with regard to the issue of proportionality in war.[30] Yael Beck and Merav Fima of NGO Monitor, a Pro-Israel NGO, claim the AI has an "obsession with Israel" and "persistently condemns Israel while ignoring suffering elsewhere".[31]
Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel, is very critical of AI and their comparison of Israel to nations such as Sudan and other offenders of human rights. Amnesty International has consistently called on Israel to bring any officer suspected of human rights violations to justice and to remove its settlements in the West Bank. It has also opposed "discrimination" against Arab citizens of Israel, and claims that the Law of Return and Entry into Israel Law are discriminatory, as they grant automatic citizenship to Jews worldwide, while denying Palestinian refugees the right of return. It has also opposed the blockade of the Gaza Strip, calling it "collective punishment".[citation needed]

In 2010 Frank Johansson, the chairman of Amnesty International-Finland called Israel a "nilkkimaa," a derogatory term variously translated as "scum state", "creep state" or "punk state."[32][33] Johansson stood by his statement, saying that they were based on Israel's "repeated flouting of international law", and his own personal experiences with Israelis. When asked by a journalist if any other country on earth that could be described in these terms, he said that he could not think of any, although some individual “Russian officials” could be so described.[33] According to Israeli professor Gerald M. Steinberg of NGO Monitor “Amnesty International has promoted an intense anti-Israel ideology, resulting in statements like these."[33]

In November 2012, Amnesty UK began a disciplinary process against staffer Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty UK campaigns manager, because of a posting on his Twitter account, said to be anti-semitic, regarding three Jewish members of parliament and the Israeli military operation in Gaza where he wrote “Louise Ellman, Robert Halfon and Luciana Berger walk into a bar…each orders a round of B52s … #Gaza”. Amnesty International UK said “the matter has been referred to our internal and confidential processes.” Amnesty’s campaigns director Tim Hancock said, “We do not believe that humour is appropriate in the current circumstances, particularly from our own members of staff.” An Amnesty International UK spokesperson later said the charity had decided that “the tweet in question was ill-advised and had the potential to be offensive and inflammatory but was not racist or antisemitic". [34][35][36]

Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elliott Abrams?

Wasn't he convicted of lying to congress?

It seems like he is pretty much spot-on with his comments about Amnesty International though.

You would believe a professional liar?

 

[bedowin62]

Elliott Abrams?

Wasn't he convicted of lying to congress?

It seems like he is pretty much spot-on with his comments about Amnesty International though.

You would believe a professional liar?

you believe obama dont you leftard? he's a professional liar.

what a moron you are; please stop allowing your anti-Israel bias to expose your ignorance. better you should just close your mouth and stop those worthless fingers from typing more ignorance that makes you look bad

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Elliott Abrams?

Wasn't he convicted of lying to congress?

It seems like he is pretty much spot-on with his comments about Amnesty International though.

You would believe a professional liar?

I also cited other critics of AI. Are you saying they are liars?