Thanks for this.

My descriptions of apartheid in Israel weren't based on this report, which I haven't read, so I won't comment on it one way or another. But do I understand you correctly when you say that you're taking the word of your friend over the report by Amnesty International? It's not that I think large organisations should be uncritically trusted, not at all. But you see the position you're putting people in if you expect them to take the word of your friend over Amnesty International et al, no?

I just find it absolutely unthinkably difficult to believe that there's credible information about such a major topic that your friend has access to, but not a single other organisation has reported on. Forget Amnesty International, let's say you're right and they are motivated, for some unknown reason, to paint Isreal in a bad light. There are plenty of media organisations that bend over backwards to paint Israel in a positive light. In fact, western media is often accused of a pro-Israel bias. Why do you think that I won't find this anywhere in the press if it's a fair reflection of the situation?

I'm honestly not trying to dismiss what you're saying here. As I said, I haven't seen this particular report. And there's obviously going to be misinformation and propaganda in any conflict. There are facts on the ground that nobody, unless they're embedded in Israel/Gaza and are paying extraordinarily close attention, will be privy to. But you can't expect people to take the testimony of your friend seriously with no corroborating evidence. And you shouldn’t either. That would be far less sensible than taking Amnesty International seriously.