[jdc]

I can see where you're coming from, but in the Amnesty case it's fairly obvious that the communication originates from a campaign (due to timing if nothing else) and in the Israel case it's not.

Then there's a strong argument to be made that Amnesty gets the moral high ground because their goals are altruistic.

Either way, I think it's an apples to oranges comparison.

[sittingnut]

altruism?! organizations like amnesty and human rights watch, regularly employee people in and out of western governments and are part of the governing western elite. no wonder that while they are always quick to call out and denounce some third world authoritarians, and adversaries of west, they are far more muted when it comes to rights violations by western leaders(even in minority of cases where they don't simply ignore). factually, greatest mass criminals and rights violators of 21st century, are presidents and other leaders of usa and it's allies. but you wouldn't know that, if your sources are amnesty and co.

[jdc]

Source? They don't come off especially muted on the USA. On this one page they mention:

* civilian drone-strike killings

* suspension of travel from Muslim-major countries

* attacks on rights of women & girls

* new Guantánamo Bay transfers

* gun violence

* death sentences

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/united-states-...

[sittingnut]

that is in fact extremely muted (and mostly about things that are not in line with ideology of west's elites) compared to their condemnation of 3rd world authoritarians or adversaries of west. especially so because west is now the biggest rights violators, including biggest mass murderers and perpetrators of illegal wars.