Amnesty International sign. Photo: Boso Tasche / Flickr

Words matter. But in the media and the “human rights” industry, double standards abound when it comes to words and the Jewish people.

Perhaps the most prominent offender is Amnesty International. The organization just released a new error-laden, methodologically flawed report accusing Israel of committing “genocide.” But as the legal scholar Mark Goldfeder pointed out, Amnesty brazenly redefined the word.

In Amnesty’s own words: “As outlined below, Amnesty International considers [the existing legal definition of the crime of genocide] an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”

Put more simply, the “human rights” organization redefined the law, and then claimed that Israel was acting lawlessly. They’re not just fitting a square peg in a round hole; they’re carving out an entirely new hole.

This isn’t the first time that Amnesty has engaged in such dishonest behavior. The organization used the same tactic to accuse Israel of another grave crime, “apartheid.” In twisting both the law and the facts, Amnesty and other organizations concocted bizarre definitions of key elements of the alleged crime.

But the degradation of the English language isn’t confined to the lengthy reports and slanderous campaigns of “human rights” activists. Consider just a handful of examples from everyday reporting by news outlets.

In 2022, the magazine Foreign Policy claimed that Israel had used “lethal force” against rioters on the Temple Mount in April 2021. After being pressed for a correction, a Foreign Policy editor claimed that the “lethal force” was the use of rubber bullets.

But in other contexts, the same magazine describes rubber bullets as “non-lethal weapons.”

Earlier this year, CNN claimed that Israel had imposed a “blockade on aid” into Gaza. A “blockade” normally refers to “the isolation by a warning nation of an enemy area (such as a harbor) by troops or warships to prevent passage of persons or supplies.” 

CNN admitted there “has been a recent uptick in aid being allowed to cross” (in just the month prior, Israel facilitated the entry of over 100,000 tons of aid), but still refused to correct. Allowing aid to cross is not a “blockade.” Had this been an elementary school vocabulary exam, CNN would have failed.

Just this week, Reuters claimed that Israel had “carpet bombed” the southern suburbs of Beirut. Far from a “devastating bombing attack that seeks to destroy every part of a wide area,” as defined by Britannica, Reuters’ own reporting and photographs depict pinpoint strikes leaving surrounding buildings intact.

There are also everyday distortions of certain words and phrases. Media outlets regularly describe blatant antisemitism as “criticism of Israel.” Antisemitic conspiracy theorists regularly seek to redefine “Zionism” — the movement for Jewish self-determination in the Jews’ ancestral homeland — as a sinister plot by an oppressive Jewish cabal.

The practice isn’t even limited to just the English language. The BBC infamously claimed that when Palestinians use the Arabic word “Yahud,” which means “Jew,” they actually mean “Israeli.” A Palestinian saying, “Some of us distracted the Jews with stones and Molotov cocktails” has very different connotations — and provides very different insights into Palestinian society — than the BBC’s altered version that replaced “the Jews” with “the Israelis.” It was a transparent effort to mislead the outlet’s audience about antisemitism in Palestinian society.

Note that the degradation of language always trends toward attributing negative qualities to the Jewish State and Jewish causes, or toward attributing positive qualities to those who seek their destruction. And therein lies the issue.

Journalists and activists aren’t concerned with reality. The journalists aren’t revealing truths, nor are the activists righting real injustices. Their actions, in redefining words as applied to Jews, reveal their ideological motivations, for which they are willing to alter reality itself.

David M. Litman is a Senior Research Analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).