Lying by Omission and by Confusion

Consider this: “Out of nowhere many soldiers jumped out and ambushed Samir. They shot him in the leg, yet he managed to run towards the village. But how far can an injured child run? Twenty, maybe 30 meters? They could have easily arrested him, especially that he was injured, but instead they shot him in the back with live ammunition … This is premeditated murder.”

This passage is a sliver of the introduction that begins an 87-page report just issued by Amnesty International under the title: “Trigger-Happy, Israel's use of excessive force in the West bank”. The report tells of Jewish savagery in occupied Palestine. That would be savagery committed by the Israeli army itself – the so-called Israel Defense Force (IDF) – and not the settlers. The rest of the report tells of countless incidences which are just as harrowing, and forming a thorough compilation of war crimes that history will never forget.

Now let me give you the opportunity to guess what the editors of the Wall Street Journal would do in the face of this reality. Would they discuss the report and call on the International Criminal Court to arrest the culprits, give them a fair trial and do with them what justice obligates? Of course not. In fact, they would not even keep their mouth shut. Did you say keep their mouth shut? Do you mean they mentioned the report? This in itself is something, isn't it? Hold on, my friend, hold on; they did nothing of the sort.

What? Well then, what did they do? What they did was attack Amnesty International not by mentioning this (unmentionable) report but by mentioning something else; something that not even a fraction of a fraction of the readers know something about. And they stuffed all that in an article they published in their European edition which they reprinted in the North American edition on February 28, 2014. The article came under the title: “Amnesty International's Jihad Problem” and the subtitle: “The rights group's pro-Taliban partner is detained on terror suspicions.”

What they tell is the story of a British citizen named Mr. Begg who was detained in Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) for about three years, proved to be innocent and released. He went back to Britain nine years ago where Amnesty International took him under its wing and used his case to protest the continued existence of Gitmo. A few days ago, the British authorities detained him for questioning without charging him of anything; because they received information to the effect that he may be connected somehow with what is going on in Syria.

The problem that the editors of the Wall Street Journal have with Amnesty International is summed up in what the organization has told them and they report in the article as follows: “everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until they are charged and proven guilty in a fair trial.”

To civilized human beings everywhere, that should be that till there is a trial – if there is going to be one – and the outcome is known. And this means it is time for everybody to shut up and wait for the legal process to take its course. Apparently, however, the editors of the Journal refuse to count themselves among the civilized crowd. And they tell this much to their readers in this fashion: “That's true. Then again, if the suspicions about Mr. Begg are proved in court he would join a list of Gitmo recidivists … It's a reminder of why Gitmo shouldn't be closed.”

Not only do they scoff at the idea of the presumption of innocence as long as guilt has not been proven, they build on the mockery of their own making by suggesting that Gitmo should continue to detain people that have not been proven guilty of anything.

Do they stop here? Of course not. They think they just hit the jackpot, and they got hungry to score a few more points. Here is a big one: “The story is also a reminder of the anti-American intellectual confusion that led Amnesty to team up with Mr. Begg. The world needs morally credible human-rights organizations.”

So here is a bunch of editors saying that Amnesty International is confused and lacking moral credibility because it believes in the principle of innocent till proven guilty. And there is a historical lesson here.

People that lived in Nazi Germany tell of a time when the Jews were accused of contaminating the system of justice, and were sent to the gas chambers to pay for their crimes. If we go by what the editors of the Journal are now saying, we should do likewise, refuse to give the Jews the benefit of the doubt, and send them at once to the gas chambers. Is that what you want, Wall Street Journal?