Amnesty International (AI) is a towering force among human rights organizations. As of 2023, its global expenditure exceeded $435 million. It documents human rights conditions across 155 countries and claims to be a global movement of over 10 million supporters.
It has reported extensively on human rights abuses, but its overall accuracy is questionable, primarily because Amnesty International’s reporting of the Israel-Hamas war is blatantly distorted. Its biased and irresponsible documentation of Israel mocks the very foundations of journalism — the distinction between facts and opinions, and the principle of being fair in conveying information.
A towering force it may be, but one of divisiveness and misinformation, flooding toxic water into a sea already muddied by a lack of impartiality and clarity.
Amnesty claims that Israel is committing “mass forced displacement in Gaza,” asserting that “Israel’s decades-long denial of the Palestinians’ right of return is one of the root causes of the conflict.” However, this overlooks a critical reality: there is an active and ongoing war that Israel did not start or want.
They could have risked their lives if these roughly two million individuals had not relocated. It is a reasonable conclusion of self-preservation that anyone in the same situation could have made. When did an army’s efforts to temporarily resettle civilians away from an ongoing battlefield come to be described as displacement?
I am not even defending the fact that, once the war is over, Israel might forcibly deny Palestinians the right to return—but the war is not over. Using ‘displaced’ instead of ‘relocated’ conveys entirely different meanings and evokes an emotional response that unfairly smears Israel when there is no evidence to justify such an interpretation.
One must put into perspective that Israel is combating terrorists who intentionally built their military bases and structures in civilian areas. These facts illuminate a much more nuanced context to the conflict.
Hamas constructed more than 500 kilometers of tunnels beneath Gaza, a densely populated area three times smaller than New York, featuring storage facilities, transportation routes, and specialized sections for launching military attacks.
When asked why civilian bomb shelters weren’t built, senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk said, “These tunnels are meant to protect [Hamas fighters] from the airplanes.” Hamas expected bombardment over these underground networks, yet they deliberately constructed them beneath civilian infrastructure anyway.
Amnesty International also made headlines as the first major human rights organization to accuse Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Its 296-page report detailed dire living conditions and mass civilian deaths, presenting these as evidence of Israel’s alleged intent to destroy Palestinians’ lives.
However, the report failed to provide sufficient proof of genocidal intent as defined by the Genocide Convention, leading Amnesty’s branch in Israel to reject the findings.
Instead of addressing these legitimate concerns, the organization’s international board suspended Amnesty Israel for two years, citing its “failure to align itself fully with Amnesty International research and positions.” Its number one human rights priority is “strengthening freedom of expression and association,” but perhaps not as much for Israel-related findings.
The narrative frames Israel’s operations as the perpetrator of Gaza’s destruction, yet completely dismisses Hamas’ genocidal ideology and role in not only enabling but also prolonging the havoc.
Merely two weeks after the October 7th massacre, a Hamas leader noted, “We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.” Hamas prioritized the militant group’s self-preservation and rearmament to attack Israel over the well-being of the Palestinian people. Had Hamas accepted the hostage agreement in March 2025, which entailed exchanging 30 terrorists for one civilian and 50 for each soldier, the ceasefire would have been held.
There is a reason why it is difficult to establish any type of constructive dialogue with Amnesty International’s arguments. Its claims are dense layers of opinions and omitted facts interwoven and stacked on each other, masked as genuine investigative journalism—ask Amnesty Israel; they experienced it firsthand.
Narratives may contain strokes of truth, but the broader perspective reveals an incomplete painting, devoid of the intricate brushwork that truth requires.
What Amnesty International brings to the table is toxic to everyone. Amnesty’s lack of journalistic integrity exacerbates a conflict already clouded by misinformation and confusion. It intensifies the polarization of media narratives and public discourse surrounding the Israel-Hamas war.
The name Amnesty International should serve as both a warning and a reminder. The warning is that wealth, prestige, and influence do not always equate to accuracy. The reminder is to approach presented facts with skepticism and open-mindedness and to form your own opinions by considering multiple sources with differing perspectives.
Andre Huynh is a 2024-2025 CAMERA on Campus fellow and a Junior pursuing a BA in International Relations at Oral Roberts University. He has ample experience organizing Israel events and seeks to promote unbiased reporting of Israel and the Middle East on his campus.
