Unfair treatment for Israel

Amnesty International (AI) has repeatedly referred to Israel's use of force in the Gaza Strip as "disproportionate." AI's support of this claim has legitimized it and has been detrimental to Israel's public image in the eyes of human rights activists across the world-some even here at the College. Maybe it's time for an in depth look at how AI defines "disproportionate."Donatella Rovera is an Amnesty International Middle East researcher and spokesperson. When asked how "disproportionate" was defined, she replied, "Under IHL, an attack is disproportionate if it may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Many of the attacks by Israeli forces match this definition." Yes, many of Israel's attacks do unfortunately involve civilian casualties. Yet Israel aims to target the armed, scarcely unified, entirely dispersed aggressors, while the Gaza Strip is 25 miles long, 4.8 miles wide, and home to 1.4 million people; the possibility of any retaliation without substantial collateral damage is virtually impossible. That aside, let us for a moment consider how Palestinian aggression falls into this definition. First and foremost, Kassam rockets fired in Israeli villages do not stray and hit civilians-they are aimed at civilians. This is unjustified. The "concrete military advantage anticipated" has to be close to zero in this case. In addition, the chance of "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof" is not only likely here but is the sole intention. In order for a legitimate investigation of human rights violations, there must first be uniform application of terms.

Let's talk a little bit more about "disproportionate." Earlier this month Amnesty International released a 525-page human rights investigation on the Gaza Strip. (a one-sided condemnation of Israel.) The result of which has been allegations of water restrictions and more allegations of human rights violations. If I had a world enough in time I would have read the whole 525 pages. In the 67 pages I did read, I came across the methodology for collecting the facts which led to these condemnations. It reads:

"Information-gathering methods included: (a) the review of reports from different sources; (b) interviews with victims, witnesses and other persons having relevant information; (c) site visits to specific locations in Gaza where incidents had occurred; (d) the analysis of video and photographic images, including satellite imagery; (e) the review of medical reports about injuries to victims; (f) the forensic analysis of weapons and ammunition remnants collected at incident sites; (g) meetings with a variety of interlocutors; (h) invitations to provide information relating to the Mission's investigation requirements; (i) the wide circulation of a public call for written submissions; (j) public hearings in Gaza and in Geneva."

Seems legitimate and somewhat comprehensive. Ask all the parties involved. It is as firsthand as possible. The only thing is, that's not what happened. AI gathered this information solely from incidents in Gaza sources. They say so themselves. "The Mission has enjoyed the support and cooperation of the Palestinian Authority and of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations. Due to the lack of cooperation from the Israeli Government.the Government of Israel prevented it from meeting Israeli government officials, but also from traveling to Israel to meet with Israeli victims." Amnesty International did not admit the possible limitations in the scope of this report. There were no investigations of the attacks on Israel. There were no personal statements from Israelis. Talk about disproportionate.

Disproportionate coverage in the Middle East is no small issue. In today's world, public opinion has concrete ramifications. As one NGO monitor pointed out, "Amnesty's report provides legitimacy for a speaking tour beginning Nov. 1 at universities in the US, organized by the Palestinian Cultural Academic Boycott of Israel (PCABI) movement entitled 'Israel's Control of Water as a Tool of Apartheid and Means of Ethnic Cleansing.' The main speaker, Omar Barghouti, is a leader of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel," (Jerusalem Post, 2009). Divestment and condemnation of Israel based on biased reports? Amnesty International needs to readjust their lens of reality and human rights. I hope in the future, understanding will be nurtured and a truer picture of reality can emerge.