By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The investigation faced limitations regarding sexual violence claims. Due to an inability to interview survivors in most cases, the investigation could not determine the full extent or reach of such crimes. One exception allowed for a single survivor interview. This constraint significantly impacted the ability to fully understand the nature of the alleged sexual violence.
Read the original article here
Amnesty accuses Hamas of ‘crimes against humanity’ on October 7, afterwards, and it’s a statement that’s sparked a lot of discussion, and rightfully so. It seems like the very act of finally making this declaration has been met with a mix of relief, skepticism, and even outright anger. It’s a sentiment I understand, especially when considering the sheer volume of commentary.
The initial response from many, as it seems, was a feeling of, “Finally, they’ve said it.” The sense of “too little, too late” is pretty palpable. To be frank, it took them a while. The atrocities of October 7th were widely condemned, and the fact that Amnesty took so long to officially label those actions as “crimes against humanity” has understandably raised eyebrows. There’s a feeling that their delayed condemnation diminishes the impact and raises questions about their motivations.
The skepticism regarding Amnesty’s motives is a huge point. Some people questioned the timing of their report, released long after the event and after a ceasefire, suggesting that the timing may have been strategic, perhaps to avoid making major headlines. This brings into question the organization’s neutrality, and whether they are driven by genuine concern for human rights or by a more complex agenda.
There’s the sentiment that Amnesty’s credibility has been eroded over the years. Some people have pointed to past actions, such as Amnesty’s critiques of Ukraine fighting against Russian aggression, and they felt that this, along with other statements, has created a perception of bias, leading to a loss of trust.
The accusations of hypocrisy also came up. Some felt that Amnesty has been more critical of Israel’s actions than of Hamas’s. Accusations of selective condemnation, focusing on one side’s actions while downplaying the other’s, have been a recurrent theme in the discussions. The general view seems to be that a balanced approach is crucial when assessing such a complex situation.
The response from those critical of Amnesty also highlights the challenges of navigating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a very sensitive subject that quickly polarizes opinions. Some are concerned that any criticism of Israel is automatically perceived as support for Hamas, and vice versa. This binary thinking, as it’s been called, is considered childish and dishonest.
In contrast, there are those who believe that Amnesty’s focus should be on upholding international law and holding all parties accountable. They would argue that the condemnation of Hamas’s actions, even if delayed, is a necessary step towards justice. Some people pointed out that this is not the first time Amnesty has denounced the attacks from October 7th. They were on top of it pretty soon after the attacks.
It’s clear that the debate about Amnesty’s report isn’t just about the report itself, but also about the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of human rights organizations. The controversy underscores how emotionally charged the issue is, and how difficult it is to achieve consensus. The need for a balanced approach, where both sides are held accountable for their actions, is very important.
Ultimately, the delayed nature of the declaration has led many to question the motives of Amnesty and to assess their credibility.