Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnes Callamard, Middle East and North Africa Research and Advocacy Director Philip Luther and activist Orly Noy attend a press conference to announce the Amnesty International’s 211-page report named “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity” at the St George Hotel, in eastern Jerusalem, February 1, 2022. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

On December 5, Amnesty International released a report accusing Israel of genocide. It begins with the Genocide Convention, then uses alleged evidence from hundreds of eye witnesses, satellite images, and statements of Israeli leaders in an attempt to prove that what Israel is doing meets the definition of genocide that the Geneva Convention spells out.

Many of Israel’s supporters are criticizing the content of the report, and Amnesty’s dismissal of Hamas’ responsibility for any of the tragedy that has unfolded in Gaza. But here’s a question that hasn’t been asked: Isn’t this a duplication of the exact work the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is supposed to be doing in the case brought against Israel by South Africa? All the rulings last winter and spring were preliminary, for the sole purpose of imposing temporary measures aimed at stabilizing the situation. In October, South Africa submitted its evidence of “genocide,” and now Israel has until next July 28 to reply.

So why did Amnesty release what is essentially its own opinion on how the ICJ should rule? One possibility is that they are so anxious to ratchet up political pressure on Israel, that they can’t wait for the ICJ. Or maybe they are afraid the ICJ will find Israel not guilty, and want to get their two cents in first. Or is their report an attempt to influence the final decision of the ICJ, laying out a roadmap for the ICJ to come to a guilty verdict?

However you cut it, it’s not good. Due process of law is a basic human right. This means that criminal guilt can only be decided by a fair and impartial court, not citizens, no matter how knowledgeable or fair they claim to be. So if an individual is accused of a crime, for some non-government organization to leap up and tell the world, “No need for a judge, Israel is guilty,” is wrong and a violation of the defendant’s rights. What’s true for an individual should also be true for a country.

The ICJ is already biased enough — as its own judges have pointed out. It’s highly likely they will find Israel falsely guilty of the absurd accusation of genocide. Yet that’s still not enough for Amnesty International.

The justice system, whether local or at the ICJ, is frustrating. It takes a long time, and it means you have to listen respectfully while people you think are lying make their case. But courts that are obligated to hear evidence from both sides are the only credible path towards justice. Israel has cooperated fully with the genocide case at the ICJ, and is now compiling its rebuttal of South Africa’s proof. Israel is entitled to present its evidence and have it considered by the judges. Amnesty, on the other hand, is accountable to no one. It can seek evidence from only whatever sources it chooses and disregard anything it dislikes.

If some individual was accused of a heinous crime, then arrested and brought to court, Amnesty would (I hope) tell whatever mob of angry, bloodthirsty citizen that might surround the courthouse that they cannot take justice into their own hands. By jumping in here and announcing their own conclusion that Israel is guilty, Amnesty is in effect joining and fueling the mob.

If Amnesty released this report now because they are afraid the ICJ may eventually decide in Israel’s favor, it’s even worse. Amnesty and other human rights organizations have been trumpeting the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation and the interim measures it imposed in the genocide case as legitimizing their stance against Israel, saying the wonderful and impartial ICJ endorsed their view. It’s sheer hypocrisy to turn to the ICJ for validation, but then attempt to usurp its role and delegitimize it as soon as there is any fear its rulings may not be in line with what they want.

If this report is an attempt to lay out a roadmap for the ICJ to reach a guilty verdict and pressure it in that direction, that’s obviously wrong. Any judicial process is predicated on judges being able to reach an independent decision based on the evidence they are presented without influence or intimidation from outside sources

Amnesty is entitled to point out what it sees as humanitarian violations by Israel and to express its views on the conflict. But this report is yet another example of unaccountable, unelected human rights NGOs trampling on rights in their zest to fight for a popular cause. It hurts Israel, and it also undermines the entire human rights movement in the process. Amnesty should be ashamed.

Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he writes about legal developments related to human rights issues of interest to the Jewish community. You can find him at https://hrhaggadah.com/.