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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Just The Facts: Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image

Just The Facts: Habeas Corpus

The Fulcrumstrives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What is Habeas corpus?

Keep ReadingShow less
A small earth by a book, scale of justice, and gavel.​

A small earth by a book, scale of justice, and gavel.

Getty Images, Tanankorn Pilong

Project 2025: Dramatic Environmental Changes Enacted

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term has started, Part 2 of the series has commenced.

In August 2024, The Fulcrum published an in-depth column on the Department of the Interior, examining how the implementation of Chapter 16 of Project 2025 could dramatically alter environmental protections in the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Considers Eroding the Separation of Church and State in Public Schools

A cross with trees in the background

Supreme Court Considers Eroding the Separation of Church and State in Public Schools

WASHINGTON–After the state of Oklahoma contested the right of a Catholic organization to get state funding for a charter school, the Supreme Court is weighing whether the separation of church and state required by the Constitution justifies Oklahoma’s decision to keep charter schools secular.

The court heard arguments on Wednesday in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, and its decision, expected in late June, could open the gates that separate the secular American education system from religion.

Keep ReadingShow less
​The U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution.
Getty Images, Bill Oxford

Democracy on the Edge: Take Action Now To Maintain the Constitution

Democracy is in danger. Voter suppression efforts are once again on the rise, most recently embodied in the reintroduction of the “SAVE Act.” Initially passed by the House in 2024 and revived again in April 2025, the bill proposes new identification standards for voting.

It calls to eliminate the use of driver’s licenses and state IDs and require birth certificates instead. While billed as an election integrity measure, this legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, particularly the elderly, minorities, and low-income Americans who may lack access to original documentation.

Keep ReadingShow less