I read the Amnesty International report on Gaza[1] so that you don’t have to, and since you’re here to see how you can argue about it with family and friends, I’ll give you my conclusions and reasoning first and get to detailed explanations later.

The bottom Line is that this is a slightly more verbose rehashing of the claims brought by South Africa to the ICJ, just somehow more academically disingenuous and unabashedly biased. If you believed that case, you’ll believe this report. If you didn’t – you won’t change your mind.

The main arguments in the report for the allegations of Genocide are that Israel’s occupation of Gaza provides a context to the conflict that states Palestinians in Gaza started out October 7 in an already disadvantaged position, and the military actions in Gaza – specifically the massive displacement caused by evacuation orders issued by the IDF and the wide-scale destruction caused by its air force, navy, and artillery corps – are intended to cause conditions of living that are so poor, they cannot be understood as anything but a deliberate attempt to eradicate the entire population of Gaza (P.283).[2]

Personally, I think that’s a load of bullshit, on every single element of the allegation. Even Amnesty International Israel agrees that to call IDF actions in Gaza a genocide is a massive stretch (they do think we’re committing crimes against humanity, though).[3]

Now, I am going to be up-front and honest with you about my academic “dishonesty” in this thread. Firstly, I’m Israeli - I’m biased against this report on the account of having taken part of the national response to the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 (in and out of uniform). The fact Amnesty stated it will issue a separate report on the horrific nature of that day but chose to publish this one first is jarring not only from a methodological perspective, but also clearly indicates their priorities (P.42).[4]

Secondly, I did not read the entire Amnesty International report with the same attention I would dedicate to it if it was a part of my job. I do not have to rebuke every single point here, since this is X, not a court room.
I am aware that this is literally the first line of the report and that it is, to be mild, an interesting choice to start this document with (P12).

But my criticisms aren’t just cherry-picking quotes from the report. The reason I disagree with the severe allegations against Israel are factual, legal, and related to judicial policy.

On the factual level, I have issues with the report’s methodology. The report is based on testimonials of Palestinians and UN sources, with Israel having declined to cooperate with the organization and provide information (P.43.) This is, much like with other international bodies, a deliberate choice by Israeli governments. it shouldn’t be surprising, that Israel isn’t inclined to cooperate with an organization that in early 2022 defined it as an Apartheid State.[5]

These interviews with Palestinians were conducted remotely.[6] I, personally, don’t trust anything coming out of Gaza, and assume that every piece of information sent out to a Western audience in at the time in which these interviews were conducted is controlled or at least vetted by Hamas.[7] I distrust UN sources for the same reason – Hilel Neuer’s @UNWatch is an amazing resource on this,[8] particularly with regards to UNRWA.[9] I am also censoring my thoughts on Ms. Francesca Albanese, the OHCHR Special Rapporteur to the Occupied Palestinian Territories because I can think of no description that isn’t bordering on libel. I mean, she does disagree with the Israeli right to self-defense even after October 7, 2023[10] and I much rather not be lectured by a person who thinks I should keel over and die to Islamic terrorists, but you can have a different opinion, I guess – it’s your prerogative.

But my point is that even if all Palestinian accounts are to be believed, and that is a structural assumption, Israel’s conduct of hostilities is not indicative of a genocidal state of mind.

Amnesty International’s basic thesis in the report for the physical elements of the crime is as follows: Israel’s offensive in Gaza happens in the context of the wider Israel-Palestine conflict (Section 3 of the report). The main elements of this context are that Israel’s displacement of Palestinians into Gaza started in 1948, with the ethnic cleansing of land during the “Nakba,”, and as of the 1967 Six-day War, Gaza is under constant brutal military occupation. The Palestinians living there are under an apartheid state. The 2005 Disengagement plan which rendered the entire Gaza Strip free of any Jewish presence – civilian or military – is not considered an end of the occupation, due to the functional control exerted by Israel over life in Gaza (P.49).[11]

The 2007 military coup of Hamas in the Gaza strip is considered Palestinian “infighting,” and therefore Israel’s response of declaring a naval blockade of the Gaza strip is considered by Amnesty as illegal (P.50). [12]

The consistent rocket fire from Gaza into Israel isn’t even mentioned until P.55 of the report, which means you get a description of Israel’s incursions into Gaza in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2021 before you even know of the literally tens of thousands of rockets deliberately fired into population centers from Gaza into 1948-Israel from within protected areas.

Graciously, Amnesty themselves admit this is happening (P.61), but fail to offer any way to defend against this without actually engaging in combat.

Given that Amnesty’s starting point is that the Palestinians are an oppressed ethnic minority living under a brutal occupation apartheid regime, it is no surprise that October 7, 2023’s attacks are almost glossed over in this report, comprising a whopping four paragraphs in Section 3.2.1. That’s it. In fact, the glossary for the report is longer than the “Context.”

The report therefore starts on October 7, 2023. Not at 6:29 AM local time, when 4,000 armed gunmen stormed Israeli villages, and a music festival and went on a murderous rampage. It starts with the Israeli response. While it is perfectly fine to admit that history did not start on October 7, the omission of details on an actually genocidal attack which included Israeli citizens being tied up before being lit on fire or music festival goers being violently raped before being executed is somewhat jarring.

The allegations of Genocide are predicated on the scale and scope of the killings (Section 6.1) and the claim that evacuation orders issued by the Israeli government (yes, you read that correctly) are meant to cause the population of Gaza to die from conditions inadequate for their survival (Section 6.2).

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a single instance in which wide scale destruction of civilian property in and on itself has been considered a crucial element of the crime of genocide, nor has there ever been a scenario in which airborne strikes have been recognized as proof of genocidal acts.

The claim that Israel uses airstrikes as tactics to indiscriminately kill Palestinians (P.106-118) are, to be blunt, insane.
Amnesty’s report reviewed 15 airstrikes, totaling 334 civilian casualties, which Amnesty claims were conducted without a valid military target being present in the strike zone. The report addresses another 124 strikes over a nine-month period (P.119). To put this number into perspective: the IDF’s spokesperson indicated the IAF conducted strikes on 800 targets on October 9, 2023 alone.[13]

Of the incidents mentioned, eight of the fifteen reviewed took place before the Israeli ground incursion into Gaza, which started on October 26, 2023. A quick review of the IDF’s Telegram account and other news outlets indicates the nature and type of assets claimed to have been targeted is present for these incidents in official IDF statements – which Amnesty claims they were unable to substantiate.[14]

Amnesty themselves are aware that this is weak and anecdotal, and so they move on to detail the “Scale of Killings” (Section 6.1.2) due to these airstrikes.
It is important to note that hostile operations do not have to be wide in scale to be considered genocides - the Ceaușescus[15] were convicted of genocide in a brief trial for actions taken under their regime, Alfons Noviks[16] was a Soviet General that led horrific campaigns of murder in the Baltics (events similar to those that led to the conviction of Petras Raslanas[17] and Nikolay Tess[18]), and a whole host of Serbians were convicted due to their involvement in the horrific Srebrenica[19] massacre and genocide.
All these events have a smaller death toll than the Gaza death toll. But the key difference is that even including Srebrenica – none of these events took place in the context of an active war front, in the middle of a combat zone.
Amnesty blindly trusts the Hamas figures of 42,000 Palestinian fatalities, acknowledging there is no distinction between combatants and non-combatants (P.119).[20]
For the record - The IDF claims this figure includes a roughly 1:1 ratio of combatants to civilians.[21]

Additionally, it is a bit peculiar that an organization that prides itself in highlighting the importance of contextualizing the horror of Israel's actions opted not to provide the context in which these air strikes are conducted. The weaponization and wide-spread use of civilian infrastructure to hide and safeguard Hamas and other militant group’s materiel[22] is simply absent from this section of the report. Even the wider context of the stated military objective of releasing the Israeli hostages is absent. The critical context for the death of multiple Palestinians during a rescue operation of Israeli civilians held hostage in the home of a Palestinian civilian Physician and his family is absent from the report.[23]

It is no wonder Amnesty feels the need to add this paragraph in their analysis (P.122):

It would appear that Amnesty’s position is that the Israeli Military is not allowed to commit any mistakes in the conduct of warfare.


But this is just the tip of this insanity iceberg. Amnesty’s truly bizarre claim is that the constant evacuation orders issued by the Israeli military starting with October 13, 2023 and being repeated as necessary, in tandem with the destruction of civilian infrastructure, can only be explained by an intent to bring about conditions intended to cause loss of life and the destruction of the Palestinian people as a group. I am not making this claim up or putting words in their mouths.
This is literally the paragraph in P.132.

I have no words sufficient to convey how absurd and insane this is.

The principle of precautions in attack forces the military of Israel to issue these orders as part of its conduct of hostilities. It is codified in virtually every text of IHL available and considered a customary, non-derogatory principle.[24]
The specific warnings issued by the IDF at the start of the offensive were addressed by Prof. Michael N. Schmitt in this very context.[25]
Their repeated use as measures of precaution with the advancing of the battle lines – a requirement by law – is considered by Amnesty to be designed solely to displace Palestinians to their deaths (P.133).

The means of evacuation orders in question? Telephone calls. Leaflets. Maps with designated areas detailed to the city square level. Evacuation routes. The IDF has used every form of communication you can imagine to warn people before attacking.[26]

The IDF is criticized for not providing sufficient aid to the population encouraged into these safer zones (which, according to COGAT data, is an odd claim, to say the least).[27] This is a factual dispute that honest people are willing to have, though, as it is undeniable that Israel has faced pressure to increase the aid it allows through means naval (JLOTS), airborne (Jordanian and US airdrops) and ground-borne, and has repeatedly shifted its policies around the aid allowed. But to allege that Israel intends to starve the Palestinians while acquiescing to ally requests to increase supply lines during an active conflict seems counterintuitive to proving genocidal intents.

Strangest of all, Israel is accused of not allowing safe passage for Palestinian to the West Bank (the border crossings that Israel does control) while simultaneously nearly glossing over Egypt’s decision not to allow refugees (that are not hostile to it) to enter its borders, via a border crossing Israel does not control and which is, for the relevant period, solely under Egypt's sovereign prerogative (P.134).

Let’s not mince words: being an internally displaced person sucks. It is a terrible, miserable existence, where you are constantly wandering without a set end-date, and you most likely will live in considerably worse conditions than you would otherwise. But internal displacement – especially internal displacement due to effective warning before your vicinity is being blocked – is not only a part of warfare, it’s an expected result and required precaution the attacker must take into account as part of the conduct of hostilities. Amnesty’s report weaponizes the obligations of the state, and infers from compliance with one law, a purposeful breach of another. In their own, frankly absurd, words (P.101):

I would like to address the ICC warrants against PM Netanyahu and former MoD Galant, but I can't. The contents are secret, which means we only know what they’re being accused of – not the facts of the accusation. The charges themselves are very severe, though. (1/30) They’re accused of the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.[1] (2/30)

I really want to stop making these international law threads, but I can’t leave this vital arena to people who, at best, have a poor understanding of the matter, and at worst, are actively spreading disingenuous propaganda and lies. Let's analyze the #Altabaeen strike. (1/19) If you are unfamiliar with this incident, it’s one where the @IDF struck and killed at least 19 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad militants[1] in a mosque within a school compound at ~5:00am local time – during morning prayers (“Fajr”). (2/19)

One of my many deep and terrible flaws is that I am at heart, by character and nature, wired to think like a lawyer. To worsen this flaw, my area of most active practice is International Humanitarian Law. (1/9) Given this preface, I feel I am in a rather strange position that people seldom hold in internet debates, in the sense that it means I actually know what the fuck I'm talking about. (2/9)