Why does Amnesty International use such different language describing civilian casualties for Russian and Israeli airstrikes?

There’s a simple answer to the question in the title of this blog, and it is very ugly. So I am very interested in what AI has to say for itself to avoid the conclusion of blatant anti-Semitism.

Here is what I am talking about, from The Allgemeiner:

From Amnesty International:

“Some Russian air strikes appear to have directly attacked civilians or civilian objects by striking residential areas with no evident military target and even medical facilities, resulting in deaths and injuries to civilians. Such attacks may amount to war crimes,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.

Compare that language with how Philip Luther described Israeli attacks on houses in a nearly parallel report issued last November:

“Israeli forces have brazenly flouted the laws of war by carrying out a series of attacks on civilian homes, displaying callous indifference to the carnage caused,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International. “The report exposes a pattern of attacks on civilian homes by Israeli forces which have shown a shocking disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians, who were given no warning and had no chance to flee.”

Amnesty uses much more graphic and loaded language to describe Israeli actions.

That’s quite a contrast. But:

It gets worse. Amnesty’s report about Russia says that they found zero evidence of any military targets among the sites hit. But it admits that Israel did have some military targets even according to their biased investigation:

In several of the cases documented in the report, possible military targets were identified by Amnesty International. However the devastation to civilian lives and property caused in all cases was clearly disproportionate to the military advantages gained by launching the attacks.

So, Amnesty International: you have an open invitation to let us know why you use such different criteria and language in describing civilian casualties from airstrikes in the Middle East. We'll print it.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

There’s a simple answer to the question in the title of this blog, and it is very ugly. So I am very interested in what AI has to say for itself to avoid the conclusion of blatant anti-Semitism.

Here is what I am talking about, from The Allgemeiner:

From Amnesty International:

“Some Russian air strikes appear to have directly attacked civilians or civilian objects by striking residential areas with no evident military target and even medical facilities, resulting in deaths and injuries to civilians. Such attacks may amount to war crimes,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.

Compare that language with how Philip Luther described Israeli attacks on houses in a nearly parallel report issued last November:

“Israeli forces have brazenly flouted the laws of war by carrying out a series of attacks on civilian homes, displaying callous indifference to the carnage caused,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International. “The report exposes a pattern of attacks on civilian homes by Israeli forces which have shown a shocking disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians, who were given no warning and had no chance to flee.”

Amnesty uses much more graphic and loaded language to describe Israeli actions.

That’s quite a contrast. But:

It gets worse. Amnesty’s report about Russia says that they found zero evidence of any military targets among the sites hit. But it admits that Israel did have some military targets even according to their biased investigation:

In several of the cases documented in the report, possible military targets were identified by Amnesty International. However the devastation to civilian lives and property caused in all cases was clearly disproportionate to the military advantages gained by launching the attacks.

So, Amnesty International: you have an open invitation to let us know why you use such different criteria and language in describing civilian casualties from airstrikes in the Middle East. We'll print it.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman