the lack of proportionality in amnesty's report on gaza. they criticised the use of civilian areas but as has been pointed out gaza is the world's most densely populated civilian area. there is no non-civilian land you can go and defend yourself. the same will be true in ukraine if the fighting moves into cities which it has. the report isn't wrong it just lacks proportionality. finkelstein wants them to say "this all happens but what else can you do?" and the ukrainian regime will want them to say roughly the same thing. the point is that they aren't israeli or russian mouthpieces as each of those states will tell you if you look through amnesty's history of condemning each, and recently, too.
But that's not what I meant. By publishing this report, Ukrainian violations of the Genever Conventions or similar rule sets is overrepresented in the public perception. As an analogy, imagine a political TV show that is discussing a controversial topic such as, say, climate change, with five guests. Now, say, 95% of society believe in climate change and only 5% deny it. Still, of his five guests, the host of the show feels obligated to invite at least one who's denying it because he wants togive the opposition a voice, too. But is this correct? In the public perception, suddenly 20% think climate change isn't real, significantly overrepresenting this opinion - and we as humans usually work this way: The more people believe in it, the more likely we are to believe it, too.
The same effect is at work with this report. It is overrepresenting the Ukrainian wrong doings because in order to get the proportionality right, Amnesty would probably have had to publish hundreds or thousands of reports about Russian war crimes before story was covered. In some cases it might have been out of the right intentions (seeing the conflict from different perspectives), in some cases out of the wrong ones (Russian propaganda) but either way, it is harmful.