This post is also available in:
English 
Русский (Russian)
Short answer
Amnesty International’s definition of genocide is overly broad and is not aligned with the internationally recognized definition of the 1948 Genocide Convention requiring clear intent to destroy a in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Amnesty’s definition includes acts that don’t necessarily fit this criterion, like discrimination and cultural destruction. Several Critics even warn that a broader definition could dilute the seriousness of genocide and undermine international law.
Long answer
Amnesty International’s definition of genocide has been criticized for being overly broad and not aligning with the internationally recognized definition. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide clearly outlines that genocide requires the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Amnesty’s definition includes acts that don’t necessarily fit this criterion, such as discrimination, cultural destruction, and economic harm. Even though the implied accusation is a serious crime (e.g., destruction of cultural heritage sites), it may not always be indicative of a genocidal intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.
Furthermore, the disagreement between Amnesty International’s global organization and its Israeli branch highlights the controversy surrounding the genocide definition. Amnesty International’s Israeli branch has distanced itself from the global organization’s accusation of genocide in Gaza, indicating that they do not consider the events there to constitute genocide.
Critics contend that this broader definition could potentially dilute the seriousness of the crime of genocide and make it easier to apply in situations that don’t meet the traditional threshold. This, in turn, could undermine the international legal framework and the efforts to prevent and punish genocide.
