Professor Gerald Steinberg of NGO-Monitor dissects Amnesty International’s report for 2006. He found a lot of flaws:
This study, which also includes a qualitative section focusing on the language used in reports, shows that Amnesty singled out Israel for condemnation to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights. This evidence of a clear political agenda is consistent with other studies and examples of Amnesty International’s bias and lack of credibility.
See also Steinberg’s related commentary in the NY Sun.
Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that the British government is also protesting the report, which “devoted more space to Britain than Burma or Zimbabwe.” At least Amnesty doesn’t blame Israel for Zimbabwe‘s crisis.
UPDATE June 4: Steinberg’s pressing the case, calling on Amnesty’s Israel branch to resign. He was quoted in YNet News:
…. the Israeli branch’s participation “in this campaign undermines the basis of universal human rights.”
