Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The headlines said Amnesty International accused Israel of genocide. Here’s what they missed.

People walking through debris

People walk through debris caused by Israeli attack in Khan Yunis, Gaza.

Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu via Getty Images

In a shocking development last week, Amnesty International effectively exonerated Israel of genocide.

This was easy to miss, and not just because of the recent crush of news. Amnesty’s report, titled “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” buried the lede, as journalists say. And most of the media coverage reflected that.


The New York Times ’ headline read: “Amnesty International Accuses Israel of Genocide in Gaza.” The Los Angeles Times ’ was similar: “Amnesty International says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.”

Before I get to Amnesty’s overlooked acquittal of Israel, it’s worth noting that calling its report unfair would be a profound understatement. Here’s the first sentence: “On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip … of unprecedented magnitude, scale and duration.”

In other words, the story of the Israel-Gaza war, as far as the storied human rights group is concerned, begins not with Hamas’ unprecedented terrorist attack on civilians that day, which included rapes, kidnappings and other forms of staggering, premeditated barbarity. Rather, it begins with Israel’s response to Hamas’ aggression. Hamas, by the way, is an organization that was literally founded on the principle of genocidal eradication of Israel.

This is a bit like beginning a report on America’s “genocide” in Japan by stating, “On April 18, 1942, the United States embarked on a military offensive on the Japanese nation of unprecedented magnitude … ” — leaving out, until some 50 pages later, that whole Pearl Harbor thing.

None of this is to say that the Israel-Gaza war hasn’t been horrific. Nor is it to say that Israel deserves no criticism for its conduct of the war — even if I think most of the criticisms are exaggerated, often for ideological reasons.

But the Genocide Convention of 1948 is very clear about what constitutes actual or attempted genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

The idea that Israel is dedicated to genocide of the Palestinians has been routinely bandied about for decades at the United Nations and by anti-Israel governments and organizations. But the Palestinian population has grown more than eightfold since Israel’s founding, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and the population of the Gaza Strip has increased 600% since 1960.

One of the most important words in the U.N.’s definition of genocide is “intent.” And if Israel, which even its enemies characterize as supremely competent and lethal, intends genocide, it’s really, really, bad at it. Indeed, if genocide were the goal, you would think Israel would stop dropping leaflets warning civilians to evacuate areas it’s about to attack or sending Palestinians caravans of aid.

Which brings us back to Amnesty International’s exoneration. On page 101 of its 296-page report, the authors acknowledge that the question of intent is a huge problem for those who accuse Israel of genocide. But they go on to reject “an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence … that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”

If Israel were actually trying to eliminate the Palestinians as a people, I think it would be obvious and easy for Amnesty and others to prove. But the point is that the report essentially concedes that Israel isn’t committing genocide under prevailing interpretations of international law.

Imagine if a prosecutor noted during a murder trial that under the existing statutes and case law, the defendant was not guilty. That might be considered an important concession.

As Commentary’s Seth Mandel writes, “So Amnesty International dissents from international law. That’s fine. Just be up-front about it: Amnesty is not accusing Israel of ‘genocide,’ it is accusing Israel of a different crime which Amnesty has named ‘genocide,’ just so it could use that word.”

It would be one thing if Amnesty issued a report calling for a more capacious definition of genocide under international law. I’d be open to such a recommendation. The existing definition still has the taint of the Soviet Union’s meddling to ensure it didn’t cover its crimes in Ukraine. A better, fairer definition of genocide wouldn’t be bad news for Israel, but it would for Russia and China.

Amnesty didn’t want a discussion about the proper definition of genocide, though. It wanted headlines alleging that Israel committed the crime — and it got them.

(Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.)

Read More

Neighbors Turn to Each Other As ICE Raids Shake Los Angeles’ Immigrant Communities

Vendors sell merchandise in the Santee Alley area of the Fashion District on June 19, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Fear of ICE raids and the recent violent protests occurring nearby have hurt business, keeping shoppers away from from the area known for its cut-rate electronics, inexpensive clothing and large selections of quinceañera dresses.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Neighbors Turn to Each Other As ICE Raids Shake Los Angeles’ Immigrant Communities

When federal immigration enforcement operations swept through Los Angeles earlier this summer, the effects rippled far beyond the undocumented community. Entire neighborhoods saw the slowdown of businesses as the sense of fear began to settle in. Yet, the absence of safety nets has encouraged residents to rely on one another.

Across the city, mutual aid networks, some long-standing and others entirely new, have mobilized to meet urgent needs. From advocacy nonprofits to autonomous street-defense teams to the vendors themselves, the response reveals a pattern: in times of crisis, communities turn inward, pooling resources, skills, and trust to keep each other afloat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold

Getty Images, fudfoto

Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold: from 1,048 detainees to 11,972 (an increase of 1,042%), according to public data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency in charge of immigration enforcement within the United States

In the same period (January 1 to June 28, 2025), the number of detainees with criminal records rose by 55%, from 9,741 to 15,141.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less