Amnesty International perverts morality

Tuvia Brodie,

לבן ריק
לבן ריק
צילום: ערוץ 7
Tuvia Brodie
Tuvia Brodie has a PhD from the University of Pittsburgh under the name Philip Brodie. He has worked for the University of Pittsburgh, Chatham College and American Express. He and his wife made aliyah in 2010. All of his children have followed. He believes in Israel's right to exist. He believes that the words of Tanach (the Jewish Bible) are meant for us. His blog address is He usually publishes 3-4 times a week on his blog and 1-3 times at Arutz Sheva. Please check the blog regularly for new posts.

Amnesty International (AI) is supposed to be a respectable Human Rights Organization. But when it comes to Israel, its respectability evaporates. With Israel, its work is closer to libel than objective analysis.

AI accuses Israel of gross moral misconduct. But as it stands on its moral soap box to demonize Israel, it ignores the immorality of Israel’s opponent.

That’s a double standard. Double standards always create the same result: one side gets a free pass; the other side gets demonized.

Human Rights are about morality. They promote a single universal moral code. A double standard is, by definition, not singular.  

The most recent example of AI’s double standard is a new Report, “Trigger-happy Israeli army and police use reckless force in the West Bank”, dated, February 27, 2014. It accuses Israel of shooting ‘Palestinians’ during what it suggests are ‘peaceful assembly’.

The Report is not accurate. It misrepresents facts. It distorts ‘Palestinian’ behaviour. It underestimates what is ‘dangerous’. It uses inflammatory language.  It perverts morality.

It does all of this because Human Rights law has been ‘refined’. As a consequence of that ‘refinement’, it becomes immoral for a sovereign state to defend itself against 15 year-old stone-throwers.

According to AI, Israel’s army will almost always have to yield to stone-throwers—because of Human Rights requirements. That means that if the Arabs want to drive Israel out of the Middle East, all they need do is send 13-15 year olds to throw stones at Jews. When security forces show up to stop them, Israeli hands will be tied.

You see, according to AI, Human Rights law is clear: security forces have no right to use force to stop stone-throwers.

This is how Human Rights work against Israel: security forces can harm stone-throwers only when stones become an ‘imminent risk to life’. However, stones are never an ‘imminent risk to life’.

Then, security forces are never allowed to attack ‘peaceful assemblies.’ ‘Palestinian’ stone-throwers are a ‘peaceful assembly’.

Checkmate, Israel. Your hands are tied. You lose.

AI lays out this argument indirectly. It’s an inference—but it is clear. Its Report criticizes Israeli ‘trigger-happy’ behaviour towards ‘Palestinians’ and concludes that Israel must absolutely respect the right of ‘Palestinians’ to peacefully assemble’. The inference is that ‘peaceful assembly’ is what ‘Palestinians’ were doing when Israeli soldiers fired at them.

In Israel, that is rarely—if ever—the case.

Human Rights law attempts to bring morality to the international arena. But that arena is messy. Sometimes, one side doesn’t believe in Human Rights. Nevertheless, Rights advocates attempt to establish a universal moral code to apply to everyone.

Moral codes are always noble. Even Judaism promotes a Universal moral code.

The difference is, Jewish law does not allow for applying that code only to one party in a dispute. That, Jewish law says, perverts morality.

Look up ‘Human Rights’. The concept is related to ‘moral principles’ and the desire for a ‘moral doctrine’. The problem is, when one participant in a fight rejects human rights and its underlying morality, human rights law still demands that the other participant must remain moral.

This requirement creates an impossibility. For example, a moral, rules-following Olympic wrestler will never win a match if his opponent breaks the rules with impunity--and punches him repeatedly in the face.

In an uneven ‘morality’ match, the human rights advantage goes to the immoral opponent.

Allowing that to happen is immoral. Requiring that it occur is a perversion of morality.

Despite AI’s accusations, Israel works hard to maintain an ethical stance in its war against an unethical opponent. We know that opponent is unethical because he (and the stone-thrower) targets civilians, uses human shields and bases his behaviour (and stone-throwing) on hate—and on the desire to destroy the Jewish state.

Human rights advocates who demonize Israel forget that hate and destruction are not a part of morality. They are never part of ‘human rights.’ They are the enemies of morality and human rights.

Look at Arab cultures. They do not support Human Rights. They reject Western—and Jewish—morality. Instead, they promote hate of--and racist attitudes towards—Jews. Neither of these is moral or humane.

Human Rights activists—including AI—ignore this underlying immorality and inhumanity. They prefer to hold Israel to the highest moral standard. They prefer to give stone throwers a ‘moral holiday’.

According to the way Human Rights law is written, those Arab boys throwing stones can destroy whatever they please. They are, by definition, ‘peaceful’.

That’s a perversion of the word, ‘peaceful’.

Stone-throwers against Israel do not seek Western-style freedom. They do not seek Western or Jewish morality.  They seek destruction. They are motivated by hate.

Human Rights advocates like AI overlook that hate. They ignore that desire to destroy.

But, by protecting these boys, AI supports hate and destruction. It protects those who would destroy all that is moral. It perverts morality.