Amnesty International, a global organization exceeding 7 million people, has long been regarded as a leading voice for human rights; however, its track record on Israel raises concerns about a pattern of selective outrage and disproportionate criticism. From allegations of apartheid to calls for international arms embargoes, Amnesty’s focus on Israel stands out as uniquely severe—raising critical questions about the organization’s impartiality and fairness in addressing complex geopolitical conflicts.
Amnesty’s reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often highlight alleged Israeli war crimes while providing limited context or acknowledgment of provocations by terrorist groups like Hamas. Following the Oct. 7th, 2023, terror attacks in which over 1,200 Israelis were killed and hundreds taken hostage, Amnesty concentrated much of its reporting on Israel’s military response in Gaza.
Amnesty’s focus on civilian casualties caused by Israeli airstrikes ignores the reality that Hamas embeds its military operations within densely populated civilian areas—an act that itself constitutes a war crime under international law.
While Amnesty condemns Hamas for actions like indiscriminate rocket attacks, the majority of its criticism frequently revolves around framing Israel as the primary aggressor. Their selective reporting fuels bigoted accusations towards Israel and undermines the organization’s credibility as a neutral facilitator of human rights.
In 2022, Amnesty released a report accusing Israel of practicing apartheid—a term historically associated with South Africa’s racial segregation regime. The organization applied the label to Israeli policies in the West Bank, Gaza and within Israel’s borders. However, the apartheid accusation grossly oversimplifies the situation, ignoring the complex security measures Israel is forced to implement as a result of constant terrorism.
“I remember studying apartheid in South Africa during history class, and it was shocking to learn about such extreme racial oppression,” sophomore Emet Greenblatt said. “Comparing that to Israel’s situation is not just inaccurate—it feels like a deliberate misrepresentation of my country’s challenges.”
Legal scholars and human rights experts have criticized the report for blending counter-terrorism efforts with systemic oppression, a comparison that is blatantly inflammatory and misleading. Anti-Israel campaigns worldwide now use Amnesty’s apartheid claim as a weapon to justify their calls for boycott and divestment from Israel.
Amnesty’s criticism of Israel fails to provide context. Reports on Israeli airstrikes in Gaza often omit the challenges of targeting terrorist infrastructure embedded within civilian areas. During the Oct. 7th attacks, Hamas fired over 5,000 rockets into Israeli cities, often from civilian locations like schools and hospitals. Yet, Amnesty’s reports focus on the Israeli response, failing to account for misfired Hamas rockets that caused significant casualties among Palestinian civilians.
Despite the United Nations’ findings that Hamas has used human shields—putting Palestinian civilians at risk during military engagements—Amnesty has neither condemned nor acknowledged this practice. At the same time, the organization was highly outspoken in denouncing Israel’s military response to Hamas’s Oct. 7th attacks, which resulted in the highest loss of Jewish lives since the Holocaust.
“It’s frustrating how Amnesty’s oversimplified narrative paints Israel as the aggressor,” senior Owen Flood said. “It doesn’t reference Hamas’s blatant violations of international law.”
The bigotry of Amnesty International is a direct reflection of its leadership. Agnes Callamard, Secretary-General of Amnesty International, has promoted false narratives, including a claim that former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres admitted to Israel’s role in the assassination of Yasser Arafat—one that Peres never made. Despite being exposed, Callamard refused to retract the false statement.
During her time as UN Special Rapporteur, she defended violent riots against Israel, including Hamas’s 2018 attempts to breach the Gaza-Israel border, calling it a legitimate exercise of free speech despite clear evidence of violence.
She has also opposed Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, claiming the distinction between citizenship and nationality based on race is mind-boggling. Callamard’s stance reflects a deep-rooted bias against Israel in the Amnesty organization.
“It’s unfortunate to see Amnesty International become so biased,” junior Mia Malhotra said. “Their work once made a significant, positive impact on human rights worldwide.”
Recently, Amnesty joined over 250 organizations advocating for a global arms embargo on Israel, citing alleged violations of international humanitarian law. However, such measures ignore the realities of the conflict, where Israel must defend its citizens against a terrorist organization that prioritizes military objectives over civilian safety.
The influence of Amnesty International extends into university campuses, where student organizations often amplify its reports. Many universities in the U.S. and Europe host events and fund programs aligned with Amnesty’s positions, contributing to a growing wave of anti-Israel sentiment among younger generations. As a result of Amnesty’s lies, College campuses are now polarized environments where Jewish and pro-Israel students frequently face unsafe situations.
Amnesty International’s disproportionate focus on Israel, coupled with its inflammatory rhetoric and selective reporting, undermines its mission to uphold universal human rights standards. By consistently framing Israel as a villain while neglecting the broader context of the conflict, Amnesty risks encouraging tension rather than fostering resolution.
For Israel, the stakes are not just reputational. Amnesty consistently shapes international opinion, drives policy decisions, and encourages campaigns that seek to isolate Israel diplomatically and economically. To ensure fair and effective advocacy, it is essential to hold organizations like Amnesty accountable for their biases and demand balanced, context-rich reporting on one of the world’s most enduring conflicts.
