Women and children make up the vast majority of those slaughtered by Israeli forces in Gaza amid the genocide, the UN has found in an eye-opening report that warns that Israel is committing “grave violations of international law” in Gaza that “may also constitute genocide.” In a 31-page report published Friday, the UN Human Rights Office found that, of the thousands of killings the office was…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Israel informed the UN on Sunday that it is pulling out of a key, decades-old agreement that allows the operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the lead agency providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians. The move is part of Israel’s violent campaign to drive the agency out of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and comes as a supposed U.S.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza hit yet another record low in October, the UN reports, as Israeli forces have worsened their blockade as part of their apparent campaign to exterminate every Palestinian in north Gaza and destroy conditions of life across the Strip. On Monday, UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini reported…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza hit yet another record low in October, the UN reports, as Israeli forces have worsened their blockade as part of their apparent campaign to exterminate every Palestinian in north Gaza and destroy conditions of life across the Strip. On Monday, UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini reported…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
It has become a commonplace among disillusioned radicals and independents that today’s choice of Harris/Trump fails to pose any of the most pressing issues facing the human race: climate change, potential world war, resource poisoning/depletion, and so on. But the most critical issue of all is indeed on the ballot: the genocide in Gaza, which has become nothing short of a watershed in defining human consciousness in our time. Conservative estimates place the death toll in that calamity at some 43,000 (perhaps as high as 186,000, according to one study), more than half of them women and children.
We are all by now inured to liberals’ adaptability to the most alarming evils of the US polity: wars of aggression abroad, mushrooming homelessness, tens of millions with little or no healthcare coverage, failing schools, social/cultural dysfunction and despair—all just part of a day’s work in the standard, narrow lane of establishment conservative/liberal discourse, but shocking and disorienting to anyone outside that Beltway of complacency and business as usual. As ghastly as those injustices are, none of them comes close to the staggering evil of this genocide recorded in real time, in the gruesome literality of daily and ever more sickening social media videos.
Yet … the liberal class of this country has now surpassed itself in depravity and callousness by fielding a candidate for president who has funded and presided over this horror: Kamala Harris, mass murderer of children. Seemingly sane if smug urban hipsters and academics urge us, with their customarily curled lips of condescension, to vote to ratify this monstrosity by casting a ballot for this unspeakable genocidaire. People who could not imagine campaigning for school shooter for mayor are unruffled in their flacking for a child murderer to the hundredth power of that—and for the presidency of the United States.
Even the habitual liberal tolerance for everyday injustice and suffering has reached its limit with the maimed, starved, and blasted children of Gaza. Even if the chronic hypocrites and double talkers of the liberal class can cross that red line, the rest of us must stand up, once and for all, and say as one: not for us—not one step further into the greatest of human evils: the mass slaughter of the innocents.
Every other issue and pseudo-issue that arises in this campaign recedes into insignificance before this unimaginable horror. Although tens of millions of Americans will cross that red line today, if we as a species are to preserve even the frailest hope of redemption, the slenderest reed of conscience or decency, at least some of us cannot follow. We must draw and re-draw that line, brightly and firmly, and challenge others to follow us in declining to cross over it—to cross over irrevocably into complicity in that “wasteland of garbage, rubble, and human remains” (Francesca Albanese, UN Rapporteur for Palestine) that final graveyard of the human spirit, of any last hope of speaking of humanity and civilization in the same breath.
We must then, follow the brave lead of Kshama Sawant (long-time socialist Seattle City Council member) and the Michigan Abandon Harris founder Hassan Abdel Salam in declaring: Here we stand—we refuse to cross that line—we can do no other. Kamala Harris and the Democrats must be punished at the polls on Tuesday—they cannot, must not, be rewarded for their genocidal assault on the desperate, destitute refugees of Gaza. The slogans of the human among us must be: Defeat Harris! Vote No on Genocide!
That no vote could take any form: leaving the presidential ballot blank, voting for or writing in the name of Jill Stein or Cornel West, or any vote except a vote for Harris.
The cries of the children of Gaza should be ringing around the world as a caution and a call—a call to return from the brink of irreversible savagery, a call to salvage a last best hope for “one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos.” (E. M. Forster). Today you can answer that call by voting against Kamala Harris and never looking back.
The post Last Minute “Closing Argument” to Vote Against the Genocidaire Harris first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
It’s a tragic sign of the times when little introductory narrative is needed to set the near-apocalyptic scene that exists in Gaza today. The world watches from a distance as Israel’s onslaught continues and the civilian death toll escalates to unimaginable levels. Now, the nightmare that Palestinian survivors are currently enduring is about to take on another dimension.
The prediction made one year ago of a man-made famine is about to be realised, though in truth, Gazans have suffered food insecurity for decades. Despite a heavy dependency on international agencies for humanitarian assistance, access to food and safe water supplies has repeatedly been denied due to blockades imposed by Israel.1As is the trend in such crises, women and children are particularly affected by malnutrition. Anaemia and other manifestations of nutrient deficiency have led to adverse effects on maternal, foetal and child health. Miscarriage and birth defect rates are high. Suboptimal nutritional status also impairs immune function and the ability of mother and child to recover from disease.2,3
This dire baseline has only amplified the number of civilian losses caused by violence. The proportion of deaths in Gaza attributed to trauma-related injury versus that from malnutrition is hard to define; in many cases, it’s part of the same story. Malnutrition significantly affects the ability to recover from internal injuries, limb loss, and surgery, thereby increasing the risk of infection, sepsis and death.
Obtaining accurate quantitative information on injury, disease and deaths is essential. It draws global attention and allows humanitarian organisations to focus their resources. The tricky bit of course is that over- or under-inflation of rates can occur for political gain. Regardless, even Israeli officials admit that the Palestinian Ministry of Health are the only governmental body actively collating decent morbidity and mortality data.4 There are pro-Israel lobbyists who are still quick to dismiss those figures, citing that a third of the 38,000 deaths declared earlier this summer were unverifiable. However, the reality of real-time assessment in this war zone is that many of the dead are still buried under rubble. Formal ID is impossible: collected statistics unavoidably include household losses reported by family members. Any remaining deniers of data coming out of Gaza should consider satellite image analysis performed by the City University of New York and Oregon State University. Almost 98,000 buildings had been destroyed as of 29 November 2023, most of which were in the Gaza Strip area and in densely populated residential areas.5 The World Health Organisation and United Nations have also found mortality rates quoted by the Palestinian Ministry of Health to be reliable during earlier critical periods in Gaza’s history.
Malnutrition prevalence from (neutral) aid agency field and clinic data also paints a progressively disturbing picture. In March, nutrition monitoring by UNICEF and others highlighted that around 1 in 20 children attending health centres and in shelters were at a life-threatening stage of severe wasting. In addition, over 30 percent of children under 2 years of age were classified as acutely malnourished; double that of three months earlier.6 By June, major nutritional concerns were no longer primarily restricted to the north. Almost 3,000 children in southern Gaza were in need of intervention to manage the effects of moderate to severe malnutrition yet were prevented from attending clinics due to ongoing conflict.7 Spring and late summer saw some alleviation of food insecurity, as more convoys were able to cross the border and distribute supplies. Then September marked the month with the lowest cross-border transfer and distribution of food and bottled water.
The UN continues to monitor the situation closely. Is Gaza now ‘officially’ in famine? To meet the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) definition, at least 20 percent of the population should have significant lack of access to food; acute malnutrition prevalence should be at least 30 percent; and mortality should be at or above 2 deaths per 10,000 people daily. At the time of writing, forty-three thousand are dead. The majority of the surviving population are now displaced, and one in five are facing “catastrophic levels of denied access to nutrition” (another IPC classification). Three-quarters of all crop fields have been destroyed. Access to food and safe water supplies, medical care and the availability of proper sanitation continues to be impossible in most situations. As the UN have stressed, Gaza sits on the very brink of famine.8 Without an immediate ceasefire, this will be a forgone conclusion.
ENDNOTES:
The post Malnutrition and Mortality in Gaza, One Year Later. Who’s Counting the Dead? first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The timing, as with so much in the ongoing wars in Gaza and Lebanon, was most appropriate. The Israeli Knesset had signalled its intent on crippling and banishing the sole agency of humanitarian worth for Palestinian welfare by passing laws criminalising its operations by 92 to 10 on October 28.
The attack on UNRWA also came with a contemporaneous legal effort, this time from South Africa. Pretoria had already made its wishes clear on December 28, 2023 in filing an application in the International Court of Justice alleging “violations by Israel regarding the [United Nations] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide […] in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” Acts and omissions by Israel, argued the South African government, were alleged to be of a “genocidal” nature, “committed with the requisite specific intent … to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza as part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group”.
By May 10, South Africa had filed four requests seeking additional provisional measures with modifications to the original provisional measures laid down by the ICJ. The momentum, and frequency of the actions, even gave certain commentators room to wonder: Was Israel’s own due process rights regarding judicial equality and the right to be heard compromised? Israel had promised to submit written observations by May 15 to the ICJ when faced with the sudden announcement on May 12 that the court would be holding an oral hearing instead.
These debates have been taking place before the concerted, dedicated, enthusiastic pulverisation of Gaza, and the ongoing killing, terrorisation and displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank. In these cases, due process remains fantasy and distant speculation, especially concerning civilians. With increasing regularity, there is chilling evidence that Israeli units have a programmatic approach to destroying a viable infrastructure and means of living on the strip.
On October 22, the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem expressed horror at the sheer scale “of the crimes Israel is currently committing in the northern Gaza Strip in its campaign to empty it of however many residents are left […] impossible to describe, not just because hundreds of thousands of people enduring starvation, disease without access to medical care and incessant bombardments and gunfire defies comprehension, but because Israel has cut them off from the world.”
In a chilling overview of the exploits of the IDF’s 749 Combat Engineering Battalion written by Younis Tirawi and Sami Vanderlip for Drop Site News, a record of systematic elimination of cultural, structural and intellectual life in the Gaza Strip is evident. As members of the battalion’s official D9 company stated: “Our job is to flatten Gaza.” In an operation that saw the destruction of the Al-Azhar University, First Sergeant David Zoldan, operational officer of Company A of the battalion, delights with fellow soldiers on seeing the explosion: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, did you see?!”
Statements of this sort are frequent and easily found up the chain of command. They are also uttered with ease at the highest levels of government. On October 21, Israeli Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir had told a “settlement” conference held in a restricted military zone that Gaza’s inhabitants would be given the chance to “leave from here to other countries”. His reasoning for this ethnic cleansing has remained biblically consistent: “The Land of Israel is ours.”
In a media statement from its Department of International Relations and Cooperation dated October 28, the South African government announced its filing of a Memorial to the ICJ pertaining to its ongoing case against Israel. The Memorial itself runs into 750 pages, with 4000 pages of supporting exhibits and annexes. (Its December 2023 application had run into 84 pages.) “The problem we have is that we have too much evidence,” remarked South Africa’s representative to The Hague, Ambassador Vusimuzi Madonsela to Al Jazeera.
Zane Dangor, director- general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, was more practical. Israel might well inflate its dossier of bloody misdeeds, but some line had to be drawn in the submissions. “The legal team will always say we need more time, there’s more facts coming. But we have to say you have to stop now. You [have] got to focus on what you have.”
While the formal contents of the Memorial remain confidential, the clues are thickly obvious. It contains, for instance, evidence that Israel “has violated the genocide convention by promoting the destruction of Palestinians living in Gaza, physically killing them with an assortment of destructive weapons, depriving them access to humanitarian assistance, causing conditions of life which are aimed at their physical destruction and ignoring and defying several provisional measures of the International Court of Justice, and using starvation as a weapon of war to further Israel’s aims to depopulate Gaza through mass death and forced displacement of Palestinians.”
Despite that comprehensive assortment of alleged crimes, the legal commentariat wonder how far this latest effort will necessarily go in linking the decisions of Israeli officialdom with genocidal intent. That Israel is committing war crimes and violating humanitarian law is nigh impossible dispute. The threshold in proving genocide, as international jurisprudence has repeatedly shown over the years, is a high one indeed. The dolus specialis – that specific intent to destroy in whole or in part the protected group – is essential to prove.
Cathleen Powell of University of Cape Town, for instance, has her reservations. “If they can find genocidal statements from state officials and show that that directly led to a particular programme that led to the destruction on the ground, then that’s probably a very strong case,”. But making that link would be “very difficult”.
Dangor has no doubts. “Genocidal acts without intent can be crimes against humanity. But here, the intent is just front and centre.” Suffice to say that Israeli lawmakers and officials, aided by the exploits of the IDF, are making proving such intent an easier prospect with each passing day.
The post South Africa’s Memorial to the ICJ: More Evidence on Israel’s Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Israel’s deadly siege on northern Gaza has entered a 30th day. Early week, the World Health Organisation managed to deliver some medical supplies to the Kamal Adwan Hospital, but on Thursday, Israeli fighter jets bombed the hospital’s third floor, where the supplies were being stored.
Al Jazeera reports Israeli forces are continuing to shell Beit Lahia, the scene of multiple massacres last week. On Wednesday, an Israeli attack on a market in Beit Lahia killed at least 10 Palestinians. Earlier in the week, Israel struck a five-story residential building, killing at least 93 people, including 25 children.
Meanwhile, at the United Nations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, has released a major report accusing Israel of committing genocide.
Albanese concludes that Israel’s war on Gaza is part of a campaign of, “long-term intentional, systematic, state-organised forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinians” . The report is titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese is now facing intensifying personal attacks from Israeli and US officials. She was set to brief Congress earlier last week, but the briefing was cancelled. On Tuesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on social media, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.”
On Wednesday, Francesca Albanese spoke at the United Nations and responded to the US attacks.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have the same shock that you have, looking at how the United States is behaving in this context, in the context of the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza. I’m not — I’m not surprised that they attack anyone who speaks to the facts that are, frankly, on our watch in Gaza. And they do that so brutally because they feel called out, because it’s not that it’s that the United States is simply an observer. The United States is being an enabler in what Israel has been doing.
AMY GOODMAN: That was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese speaking at the United Nations on Wednesday. She joins us here in our studio.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us.
Well, before we get you to further respond to what the US and Israel is saying, can you lay out the findings of your report?
Colonial Erasure’: UN expert Francesca Albanese on Israel’s “intent to destroy” Gaza Video: Democracy Now!
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. First of all, thank you for having me.
I have to say that this report is the second I write on — and I present to the United Nations on the topic of genocide. And it has been very reluctantly that I’ve taken on the responsibility to be the chronicler of — the chronicler of an unfolding genocide in Gaza.
In March this year, I concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israel had committed at least three acts of genocide in Gaza, like killing members of the protected group, Palestinians; inflicting severe bodily and mental harm; and creating conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of the group. And the reason why I identified these were not just war crimes and crimes against humanity is because I identified an intent to destroy.
And I understand that even in this country, people are quite confused about what is genocidal intent, because it’s not a motive. One can have many motives to commit a crime. And I understand genocide is a very insidious one, and it’s difficult to identify what’s a motive. But this is not about the motives. The intent to commit genocide is the determination to destroy, which is fully evident in — especially in the Gaza Strip, as I identified in — as argued in March already.
The reason why I continue to write about genocide — and, in fact, this report walks on the heels of the previous one — is in order to better explain the intent, especially state intent, because there is another misunderstanding that there should be a trial of the alleged perpetrators in order to have — to attribute responsibility to a state.
No, because not only you have had acts committed that should have been prevented by the — in a rule of law, in a proclaimed rule of law system like Israel, where there is the government, the Parliament, the judiciary, working as checks and balances, genocide has not only been not prevented, [it] has been enabled through the various organs of the state.
And I explain what has happened as of October 7, which has provided the opportunity to escalate violence, to build on the rage and on the fury of many Israelis, turning the soldiers into willful executioners, is that there was already a plan, hatred.
I mean, the Palestinians, like Ilan Pappé says, are victims not of war, but of a political ideology that has been unleashed. Palestinians have always been an unwanted encumbrance in the Israeli mindset, because they are an obstacle both as an identity and as legal status to the realisation of Greater Israel as a state for Jewish Israelis only.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, we’ll go back to — because I do want to ask about the Israeli state institutions that you name and the branches of the Israeli state that have been involved in forming this state’s intent. But if you could elaborate on the point that you make, the difference between intent and motive, and in particular what you say in the report about how it’s critical to determine genocidal intent, “by way of inference”?
You know, that’s a different phrasing than one has heard in all of this conversation about genocide so far. If you explain what you mean by that and what such a determination makes possible? So, rather than just looking at genocidal intent in other forms, what it means to infer genocidal intent?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: So, first of all, what constitutes genocide is established by Article II of the Genocide Convention, which creates a twofold obligation for member states, to prevent genocide so genocide doesn’t have to complete itself. When there is a manifestation of intent, even genocidal intent, there is already an obligation to intervene, because a crime is unfolding.
And then there is an obligation to punish. How the jurisprudence, especially after Rwanda and after former Yugoslavia, there have been cases both for criminal proceedings, where individual perpetrators have been investigated and tried, and [the] responsibility of the state, litigated before the International Court of Justice. This is how the jurisprudence on genocide has developed.
And the intent has been further elaborated upon what the Genocide Convention says. And while it might be difficult to have direct intent, meaning to have — it’s difficult but not impossible, in fact, to have a state official say, “Yes, let’s go and destroy everyone” — although I do believe that there is direct intent in this genocide in Gaza.
But the court also established that genocide can be inferred from the scale of the attack on the people, the nature of the attack, the general conduct. And what it says is that normally there should be a holistic approach in order to identify intent, which is exactly what I’ve done.
And indeed, this is why I proposed in this report what I called the triple lens approach. We need to look at the conduct, like the totality of the conduct, instead of studying with a microscope each and every crime. We need to look at the whole, against the totality of the people, the Palestinians as such, in the totality of the land, that Israel has slated as its own by divine design.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: No, absolutely. And then, if you could — the other precedent you’ve just spoken about — of course, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia — another case that you cite in the International Court of Justice is The Gambia v. Myanmar. So, how is that comparable to what we see happening in Gaza? Why is that a relevant example and different from both Rwanda and former Yugoslavia?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Let me tell you what I see as the major differences in the case of Israel, because it’s a very complex discussion. But in all four cases, there is a toxic combination of hatred, ideological hatred, which has informed political doctrines. And this is true in all the various contexts we are mentioning. The other common element is that there is [a] combination of crimes. Like, forced displacement is not an act of genocide per se, but the jurisprudence says that it can contribute to corroborate the intent.
But, again, mass killing or mass destruction of property, torture and other crimes against a person, which translate into an infliction of physical and mental harm to the group, not individuals as such, but individuals as part of the group, these are common elements to all genocides.
What I find characteristic in this one is, first of all, this is not — I mean, the state of Israel is not Myanmar and is not Rwanda 30 years ago. This is not war-torn former Yugoslavia. This is a state which has a separation of powers, different organs, as I said, checks and balances. And let me give you a specific example, because you asked me to comment on the state functions.
In January this year, the International Court of Justice issued a set of preliminary measures in the context of its identification, before even looking at the merits of the case initiated by South Africa for Israel’s breach, alleged breach, of the Genocide Convention, which identified the plausibility of risk for the rights protected — of the rights of the Palestinians protected under the Genocide Convention, which means plausibility — it’s semantics, but it’s plausibility that genocide might be committed against the Palestinians in Gaza.
And the provisional measures included an obligation to investigate and prosecute the various cases of incitement, genocidal incitement, that the court had already identified. And it mentions leaders, senior leaders, of the Israeli state. Has there been any investigation? Has there been any prosecution?
But I’m telling you more. The genocidal statements didn’t resonate as shocking in the Israeli public, not only because there was rage, an enormous rage and animosity, of course. I mean, this is understandable, that the facts of October 7 were brutal and traumatized the people.
But at the same time, hatred against the Palestinians and hate speech, it’s not something that started on October 7. I do remember, and I do remember the shock I felt because no one was reacting, and years ago, there were Israeli ministers talking of — freely, of killing, justifying the killing of Palestinians’ mothers and children because they would turn into terrorists.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, talk about the title of your report, Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is another element which I think — and, in fact, it’s the most important, where we see the difference between this genocide and others, because there is a settler-colonial component. And again, if you look at what the International Court of Justice in July this year concluded, when it decided that the — when it found that Israel’s 57 years of occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful and needs to be withdrawn totally and unconditionally, as rapidly as possibly, which the General Assembly says by September 2025.
The court said that it amounts to — that the colonies amount to — have led to a process of annexation and racial segregation and apartheid. And these are the features of settler colonialism, the taking of the land, the taking of the resources, displacing the local population and replacing it. This has been a feature.
Now, it is in this context that we need to analyse what is happening today. And by the way, don’t believe, don’t listen only to Francesca Albanese. Listen to what these Israeli leaders and ministers are saying — reoccupying Gaza, retaking Gaza, recolonising Gaza, reconquesting Gaza. This is what they are saying.
And there are settlers on expeditions, not only to Gaza but also to Lebanon. So, this is why I say that the main difference, the main feature of this genocide, apart all the horrible aspects of it, is that this is the first settler-colonial genocide to be ever litigated before a court, an international court.
And this is why coming to this country, which is a country birthed from a genocide, when I meet the Native Americans, for example, I feel the pain of these people. And I say if we manage to build on the intersectionality of Indigenous struggle, the cry for justice behind this case for Palestine will resonate even louder, because it will somewhat be an act of atonement from the settler-colonial endeavor, which has sprouted out of Europe, toward Indigenous peoples. So there is a lot of symbolism behind it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, you know, the analogy — first of all, you talked about the case brought by South Africa, so what they share, apart from South Africa and Israel-Palestine, is both the fact that they were colonial-settler states, as well as the fact that apartheid has been established as having occurred in both places.
Now, in the case of South Africa, it was a decision that was taken by the United Nations at the time of apartheid, was unseating South Africa from the General Assembly. There have been calls now to do the same with Israel. So, if you could — if you could comment on that?
And then, I just want to quote another short sentence from your report, in which you say, “As the world watches the first live-streamed settler-colonial genocide, only justice can heal the wounds that political expedience has allowed to fester.” So, if you could talk about the International Court of Justice’s case in that context, what role you think they can play, South Africa’s case, in resolving or addressing — seeing and addressing this wound?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, let me unpack the question of the unseating Israel, because this is one of the recommendations I made in my report. Under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a member state can be suspended of its credentials or its membership by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the UN Security Council. And the first criticism I got is that we cannot do that, because every states commit international law violations. Absolutely. Absolutely.
But there are two striking features here. First, Israel is quite unique in maintaining an unlawful occupation, which has deemed such by — in at least one full occasion, but again, there was already a case brought before the ICJ in 2004, so there have been two ICJ advisory opinions.
There is a pending case for genocide. There has been the violations of hundreds of resolutions by the — on Israel — over occupied Palestinian territory, by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and steady violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, the Apartheid Convention, the Genocide Convention. So this is quite unique.
But all the more, this year alone, Israel has conducted an attack, an unprecedented attack, against the United Nations. It has attacked physically, through artillery, weapons, bombs, UN premises. Seventy percent of UNRWA offices and UNRWA buildings, clinics, distribution centers have been hit and shelled by the Israeli army.
Two hundred and thirty UN staff members have been killed by Israel in Gaza alone. UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have been attacked. And this doesn’t even take into account the smear, the defamation against senior UN officials, the declaration of the secretary-general as persona non grata, the referring to the General Assembly as a “cloak of antisemites”.
Again, this has mounted to a level — the hubris against the United Nations and international law has been unchecked and unbounded forever, but now, especially after the Knesset passed a law outlawing UNRWA, declaring UNRWA a terrorist organisation, and therefore disabling it from its capacity to deliver aid and assistance especially in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is the nail in the coffin of the UN Charter.
And it can also contribute to that sense of colonial erasure, because here it’s not just at stake the function of a UN body — and UNRWA is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, so it’s even more serious. But there is the capacity of UNRWA to deliver humanitarian aid in a desperate situation, and also the fact that UNRWA is seen by Israel as the symbol of Palestinian identity, especially the Palestinian refugees. So there is an attempt to erase Palestinianness, including by hitting UNRWA.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about your trip here, as we begin to wrap up. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, quoted on — tweeted on Tuesday, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.” If you can further address their charge of antisemitism against you?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what happened. You were supposed to come to Congress and speak and brief them, but that was cancelled this week.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yes, it was canceled. But let me — first of all, I’m very embarrassed to read this, because a senior US official who writes this, I mean, it shows a little bit of desperation. I’m sorry, but, you know, I’m very candid.
And let me unpack my antisemitism for the audience. So, what I’ve been accused of — the reason why I’ve been accused of antisemitism — is because I’ve allegedly compared the Jews to the Nazis. Never done. Never done.
What I’ve said, what I’ve done is saying, and I keep on saying, that history is repeating itself. I’ve never done such a comparison where I draw the parallel. It’s on the behaviour of member states who have the legal and moral obligation to prevent atrocities, including an unfolding genocide.
In the past, they have done nothing — nothing — until the end of the Second World War, to prevent the genocide of the Jews and the Roma and Sinti. And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Bosnians.
And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Rwandans. And they are doing the same today. This is where I insist that now, compared to when there was the Holocaust, now we have a human rights framework that should prevent this. The Genocide Convention to prevent this. So, this is one of the points.
The second point, — which leads to portray me as an antisemite, which is really offensive — is that I’ve said that October 7 was not — I’ve contested, I’ve challenged the argument that October 7 was an antisemitic attack. October 7 was a crime, was heinous. And again, I’ve condemned the acts that were directed against the Israeli civilians, and expressed solidarity with the victims, with the families. I’ve been in contact with the families of the hostages.
But I’ve also said the hatred that led that attack, that prompted that attack, to the extent it hit civilians, not the military, but it was prompted not by the fact that the Israelis are Jews, but the fact that the Israelis — I mean, the Israelis are part of that endeavor that has kept the Palestinians in a cage for 17 years and, before, under martial law for 37 years. And Palestinians have tried — it’s true they have used violence, but before violence, they have tried dialogue. They have tried collaboration. They have tried a number of means to access justice, and they have gone nowhere.
I can — I mean, let me relate just this case, because last year I worked with children. And someone who was 17 years old before October 7 last year had never set foot out of Gaza. This is the reality. And I spoke with children while I was writing my report on “unchilding”, the experience of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. And one of them — I mean, there were these two girls fighting, because one of them had been able to go to Israel and the West Bank because she had cancer and could be treated, and the other was jealous, because, she said, “At least she was sick, and she could go, she could travel. I’ve never seen the mountains.”
And again, this doesn’t justify violence, but, please, please, put things in context. And even Israeli scholars have said claiming that October 7 was prompted by antisemitism is a way to decontextualize history and to deresponsibilise Israel.
I condemn Israel not because it’s a Jewish state. It’s not about that, but because it’s in breach of international law through and through. And were the majority of Israelis Buddhists, Christians, atheists, it would be the same. I would be as vocal as I am now.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Francesca, just one last question, and we only have a minute. Your recent book, J’Accuse, you take the title, of course, from the letter Émile Zola wrote during the Dreyfus Affair to the French president. You came under severe criticism for the choice of that title. Could you explain why you chose it and what it means in this context?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. I have the sense that whatever I say comes under scrutiny and criticism. But J’Accuse is — first of all, it’s the title that was proposed by the editor, the publisher. And I was against it until October 7.
When I saw the narrative, the dehumanization of the Palestinians after October 7, and what it was legitimising, I said, “This is the title. We need to use it,” because I draw the parallel between what is happening to the Palestinians and what has happened to other groups, particularly the Jewish people in Europe.
I say the Holocaust was not just about the concentration camps. The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of discrimination, and the previous decades had led the Jewish people in Europe to be kicked out of jobs, professions, to be treated like subhumans, as animals. And it’s this dehumanisation that we need to look at in the face today, in the eyes today, and recognise as leading to atrocity crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The text of this programme was first published by Democracy Now! here and is republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Another Palestinian journalist, Bilal Rajab, of al-Quds al-Youm TV channel, has been killed in an Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip, confirms the Gaza Media Office.
Al Jazeera Arabic earlier reported that a strike in the vicinity of the Firas market in Gaza City had killed three people, among whom local sources said was Rajab.
The office said the total number of journalists and media workers who have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, now stands at 183.
It called on the international community to intervene to stop the killing of Palestinian journalists reporting on the war in Gaza, which is the deadliest conflict for media workers.
Today is International Day to End Impunity for crimes against journalists and the UN chief’s spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said it would be observed.
“In his message for the day, the secretary-general underscores that a free press is fundamental to human rights, to democracy and to the rule of law,” Dujarric said.
‘Alarming rate of fatalities’
“Recent years have seen an alarming rate of fatalities in conflict zones, particularly in Gaza, which has seen the highest number of killings of journalists and media workers in a war in decades.
“In his message, he warned that journalists in Gaza have been killed at a level unseen by any conflict in modern times.
“The ongoing ban preventing international journalists from Gaza suffocates the truth even further,” he said.
Many Lebanese journalists have been shot and assassinated too, even well before Israel’s siege in Lebanon.
Some are sharing their blood type just in case they need life-saving blood after being shot.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
In recent days, Israeli attacks have come “perilously close” to striking a UN-designated world heritage site in east Lebanon, the UN has warned, putting one of the best-preserved Roman ruins in the world in danger of being destroyed by Israeli bombing. This week, Israeli forces ordered the entire city of Baalbek, in the Bekaa Valley, to evacuate — the first citywide displacement order amid…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
We are joined by U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese, who says Israel is committing genocide on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Facing accusations of antisemitism from Israeli and U.S. officials, Albanese is in New York to present her report, titled “Genocide as colonial erasure,” which finds that Israel’s genocide is founded on “ideological hatred”…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
A high-powered U.S. official is being harshly criticized after attacking UN Special Rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese as Israel steps up its attacks against the UN to advance its genocide in Gaza. On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the U.S. believes Albanese is “unfit for her role.” She baselessly accused Albanese…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
On Tuesday, the Israeli Knesset passed legislation banning the main aid group for Palestinians from operating in the occupied Palestinian territories — a move that world leaders, humanitarian groups and the agency itself have warned will spell certain death for those starving amid Israel’s genocide and vastly erode Palestinians’ rights in the long term. The two bills passed with overwhelming…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Asia Pacific Report
The United Nations and countries across the globe have denounced Israel after its Parliament — the Knesset — overwhelmingly passed two laws that brands the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) as a “terror” group and bans the humanitarian organisation from operating on Israeli soil.
The legislation, approved yesterday, would — if implemented — take effect in three months, preventing UNRWA from providing life-saving support to Palestinians across Israeli-occupied Gaza and the West Bank.
Reaction ranged from “intolerable”, “dangerous precedent”, “outrageous” and appeared to be setting Tel Aviv on a collision course with the United Nations and the foundation 1945 UN Charter itself.
Australia was among states condemning the legislation, calling on Israel “to comply with the binding orders of the [International Court of Justice] to enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale in Gaza”. There was no immediate response from New Zealand.
The condemnation came as an Israeli air strike destroyed a five-storey residential building sheltering displaced families in Gaza’s Beit Lahiya, killing at least 65 Palestinians and wounding dozens.
Dr Hussam Abu Safia, the director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital, said dozens of wounded people had arrived at the facility and urged all surgeons to return there to treat them.
Many of the wounded may die because of the lack of resources at the hospital, he told Al Jazeera.
World ‘must take action’
“The world must take action and not just watch the genocide in the Gaza Strip,” he added.
“We call on the world to send specialised medical delegations to treat dozens of wounded people in the hospital.”
A Middle East affairs analyst warned that the “significant starvation and death” in northern Gaza was because the the international community had been unable “to put pressure on the Israelis”.
“The Israelis have been left to their own devices and are pursuing this campaign of ethnic cleansing [including] starvation — there’s no clean water, even this building that was bombed right now the medics are not allowed to go and save people . . . this is by design collective punishment,” said Adel Abdel Ghafar, of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.
Ghafar told Al Jazeera in an interview that Israeli tactics were also designed to push out the population in northern Gaza and create “some sort of military buffer zone”.
On the UNRWA ban, Ghafar said that to Israel, the UN agency “perpetuates Palestinians staying [in Gaza] because it provides food, education, facilities . . . the Israelis have had UNRWA in their targets from day one”.
39 strikes on Gaza shelters
The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said Israel’s military had attacked shelter centres in the Gaza Strip 39 times so far this month in a bid to “displace Palestinians and empty Gaza”.
The assaults have killed 188 people and wounded hundreds more, it said.
The Geneva-based group said Israel had targeted schools, hospitals, clinics and shelter centres in Gaza 65 times since the beginning of August.
Why is Israel really trying to close a UN agency that feeds Palestinians? (And what even is UNRWA?) pic.twitter.com/69vm6JtLqQ
— AJ+ (@ajplus) October 28, 2024
In other international community reaction over the Israeli law banning the UN agency for Palestinian refugees:
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Experts fear reports of 124 dead in attack on villages south of Khartoum are significant underestimation
Sudanese militia have been accused of killings, sexual violence, looting and arson during eight days of attacks on villages south of Sudan’s capital, Khartoum.
The UN said there were reports of “gross human rights abuses” linked to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) group, which has escalated attacks on civilians in el-Gezira state since the area’s key commander was reported to have defected to government forces on 20 October.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
The man has a cheek. Having lectured Iranians and Lebanese about what (and who) is good for them in terms of rulers and rule (we already know what he thinks of the Palestinians), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been keeping busy on further depriving access and assistance to those in Gaza and the West Bank. This comes in draft legislation that would prevent the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from pursuing its valuable functions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The campaign against UNRWA by the Israeli state has been relentless and pathological. Even before last year’s October 7 attacks by Hamas, much was made of the fact that the body seemed intent on keeping the horrors of the 1948 displacements current. Victimhood, complained the amnesiac enforcers of the Israeli state, was being encouraged by treating the descendants of displaced Palestinians as refugees. Nasty memories were being kept alive.
Since then, Israel has been further libelling and blackening the organisation as a terrorist front best abolished. (Labels are effortlessly swapped – “Hamas supporter”; “activist”; “terrorist”.) Initially came that infamous dossier pointing the finger at 12 individuals said to be Hamas participants in the October 7 attacks. With swiftness, the UN commenced internal investigations. Some individuals were sacked on suspicion of being linked to the attacks. Unfortunately, some US$450 million worth of donor funding from sixteen countries was suspended.
UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini was always at pains to explain that he had “never been informed” nor received evidence substantiating Israel’s accusations. It was also all the more curious given that staff lists for the agency were provided to both Israeli and Palestinian authorities in advance. At no point had he ever “received the slightest concern about the staff that we have been employing.”
In April, Lazzarini told the UN Security Council that “an insidious campaign to end UNRWA’s operations is under way, with serious implications for peace and security”. Repeatedly, requests by the agency to deliver aid to northern Gaza had been refused, staff barred from coordinating meetings between humanitarian actors and Israel, and UNRWA premises and staff targeted.
Israel’s campaign to dissuade donor states from restoring funding proved a mixed one. Even the United Kingdom, long sympathetic to Israel’s accusations, announced in July that funding would be restored. In the view of UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, UNRWA had taken steps to ensure that it was meeting “the highest standards of neutrality.”
In August, the findings of a review of the allegations by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna, instigated at the request of the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, were released. It confirmed UNRWA’s role as “irreplaceable and indispensable” in the absence of a political solution between Israel and the Palestinians, a “pivotal” body that provided “life-saving humanitarian aid and essential social services, particularly in health and education, to Palestinian refugees in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank.”
In identifying eight areas for immediate improvement on the subject of neutrality (for instance, engaging donors, neutrality of staff, installations, education and staff unions), it was noted that “Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence” that the agency’s employees had been “members of terrorist organizations.”
On October 24, UNRWA confirmed that one of its staffers killed by an Israeli strike in Gaza, Muhammad Abu Attawi, had been in the agency’s employ since July 2022 while serving as a Nukhba commander in Hamas’s Bureij Battalion. Attawi is alleged to have participated in the killing and kidnapping of Israelis from a roadside bomb shelter near Kibbutz Re’im in October last year. His name had featured in a July letter from Israel to the agency listing 100 names allegedly connected with terrorist groups. But no action was taken against Attawi as the Israelis failed to supply UNRWA with evidence. Lazzarini’s letter urging, in the words of Juliette Touma, the agency’s director of communications, “to cooperate … by providing more information so he could take action” did not receive “any response”.
Having been foiled on various fronts in its quest to terminate UNRWA’s viable existence, Israeli lawmakers are now taking the legislative route to entrench the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Two bills are in train in the Knesset. The first, sponsored by such figures as Yisrael Beytenu MK Yulia Malinovsky and Likud lawmaker Dan Illouz, would bar state authorities from having contact with UNRWA. The second, sponsored by Likud MK Boaz Bismuth, would critically prevent the agency from operating in Israeli territory through revoking a 1967 exchange of notes justifying such activities.
Even proclaimed moderates – the term is relative – such as former defence minister Benny Gantz support the measures, accusing the UN body of making “itself an inseparable component of Hamas’s mechanism – and now is the time to detach ourselves entirely from it”. It did not improve the lot of refugees, but merely perpetuated “their victimisation.” Evidently for Gantz, Israel had no central role in creating Palestinian victims in the first place.
By barring cooperation between any Israeli authorities and UNRWA, work in Gaza and the West Bank would become effectively impossible, largely because Jerusalem would no longer issue entrance permits to the territories or permit any coordination with the Israeli Defense Forces.
UN Secretary-General Guterres was aghast at the two bills. “It would effectively end coordination to protect UN convoys, offices and shelters serving hundreds of thousands of people.” Ambassadors from 123 UN member states have echoed the same views, while the Biden administration has, impotently, warned that the proposed “restrictions would devastate the humanitarian response in Gaza at this critical moment” while also denying educational and social services to Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
In their October 23 statement, the Nordic countries also expressed concern that UNRWA’s mandate “to carry out […] direct relief and works programmes” for millions of Palestinian refugees as determined by UN General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV) would be jettisoned. “In the midst of an ongoing catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza, a halt to any of the organisation’s activities would have devastating consequences for the hundreds of thousands of civilians served by UNRWA.”
The statement goes on to make a warning. To impair the refugee agency would create a vacuum that “may well destabilise the situation in [Gaza, and the West Bank, including east Jerusalem], in Israel and in the region as a whole, and may fundamentally jeopardize the prospects of a two-state solution.”
These are concerns that hardly matter before the rationale of murderous collective punishment, one used against a people seen more as mute serfs and submissive animals than sovereign beings entitled to rights and protections. Israel’s efforts to malign and cripple UNRWA remains a vital part of that agenda. In that organisation exists a repository of deep and troubling memories the forces of oppression long to erase.
The post Crippling UNRWA: The Knesset’s Collective Punishment of Palestinians first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The UN’s human rights chief has warned that Israel’s siege of north Gaza is the “darkest moment” of Israel’s year of genocide and suggested that Israeli forces may be violating the UN’s Genocide Convention as reports emerge of Israel seizing a hospital in the region. In one of the UN’s strongest statements on the assault so far, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said that…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Thirty-eight killed in Khan Younis including 13 children from same family, as survivors sift through rubble
• Middle East crisis – live updates
At least 72 people have been killed in Israeli operations across Gaza in the past day, hospital officials in the besieged territory have said, although communication difficulties in the north of the strip mean the final toll could be much higher.
In the central town of Khan Younis, 38 people, including at least 13 children from the same family, were killed in airstrikes early on Friday, hospital records showed. Relatives cradled their bruised and broken bodies in the morgue of the nearby European hospital before they were buried, in some cases several children to a shroud.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
Israeli soldiers attacked UN peacekeepers at an observation post in south Lebanon who were observing the military’s nearby raids, the UN said Friday, as Israeli forces appear to be targeting people documenting their assault on the country. In a statement, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said that peacekeepers were at a permanent observation post near Dhayra on Tuesday…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, has said the ‘darkest moment’ of Israel’s war is unfolding in northern Gaza as the ‘Israeli military is subjecting an entire population to bombing, siege and starvation, as well as being forced to choose between mass displacement and being trapped in an active conflict zone’. Türk called on the international community to uphold humanitarian law
Three journalists killed by Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon
Israel must stop ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Gaza, Jordan tells US
This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
Never let it be said that the European Union, whose officials self-advertise as staunch defenders of international law, that some bending can take place. Take, for instance, the recent revelations in The Intercept about legal advice sent to the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on July 22 on how to respond to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Israel’s illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories. The salient question: What would constitute the rendering of aid or assistance to Israel in maintaining those settlements?
EU policy towards Israel and its settlements has been one of schizophrenic “differentiation”, notably on the subject of trade. A 2015 policy brief from the European Council on Foreign Relations describes it as “a de facto policy of differentiating between Israel and settlement activities in the Occupied Territories within its bilateral relations.” This enables the EU to pursue a non-recognition platform regarding Israeli settlement activity while still formally engaging Israel proper. Like any policy that is neither here nor there, it had not “been sufficiently acknowledged or implemented in a consistent way” on the basis that it might impair the already stuttering and stalled Middle East peace process.
Whatever its merits – hypocritical, convenient, pragmatic, or a mixture of all three – the policy did give the EU some latitude to conduct standard trade and diplomatic relations with Israel while still adopting a different stance on its activities in the West Bank and Gaza. In terms of trade, the issue of accurate labelling on goods from the Occupied Territories became an ongoing source of discussion. While the European Commission issued relevant notices on how Union legislation applied, it was a matter for Member States as to how far they would go to enforce them.
A 2015 interpretative notice from the Commission, for instance, makes the following remark: “Since the Golan Heights, and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), are not part of the Israeli territory according to international law, the indication ‘product from Israel’ is considered to be incorrect and misleading in the sense of the referenced legislation.”
For the next few years, however, enforcement in terms of accurate labelling proved lax. A February 2020 study by the European Middle East Project proved illuminating in this regard. In a survey of 189 stores across the union in November 2019, the researchers focused on wines produced in Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights and the West Bank. “Only 10% of the settlement wines on sale in the EU have a correct or partially correct origin indication online in accordance with EU rules, i.e. ‘Product of West Bank/Golan Heights (Israeli Settlement).’”
On November 12, 2019, the Court of Justice of the EU found in the Psagot case that the provisions of EU consumer law should be read broadly to require not only labelling indicating both the place or country of provenance but also the indication of that provenance (for instance, that the product came from an “Israeli settlement”).
In July, the International Court of Justice jolted the trading frameworks of many countries by handing down an advisory opinion on the status of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories after its views were sought by the UN General Assembly. It lacked all startling force and was almost banal in stating the obvious: that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, along with “the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law.” The regime had been chokingly administrative, restrictive, altering in demographic composition, and discriminatory in targeting the Palestinians and favouring Israeli settlers.
It was therefore imperative, the Court advised, that international bodies – the UN Security Council and the General Assembly – along with members of the international community, not recognise the status of Israel’s occupation of the territories, nor supply aid or support in maintaining it. Israel was also “under an obligation to end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.” All further settlement activities were to cease, and all current settlers in the OPT areas evacuated.
Most significantly of all – at least for trade watchers – was the Court’s evident sinking of any tip-toeing policy on differentiation regarding trade connected with the Occupied Territories. Any sale of products from the OPT areas in, for instance, the EU, would surely constitute some form of aid and support for their continued illegal existence.
The official response from the United States was standard fare: alarm that an international institution was doing its work. The US State Department expressed consternation that the opinion had gone beyond what it needed to do. “We are concerned that the breadth of the court’s opinion will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict and bring about an urgently needed just and lasting peace with two states living side by side in peace and security.”
The EU preferred a less candid, and inherently more flexible approach. And why would it otherwise? Between 2020 and August 2023, an estimated US$164 billion in loans and guarantees from European investors were advanced to businesses linked to Israeli settlements, with approximately $144.7 billion worth of shares and bonds being held in those same companies.
With such matters in mind, the director of the EU Foreign Service’s legal department, Frank Hoffmeister, penned a seven-age memorandum on July 22 for Borrell’s eyes. The memorandum suggests that the ICJ opinion lacks clarity on duties not to enter economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the OPT “which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory” and taking steps to prevent trade or investments relations that aid in maintaining “the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
Having confected a false conundrum in terms of interpretation, Hoffmeister goes on to call the EU labelling of foodstuffs from the settlements “a matter of political appreciation of whether further measures are needed in this respect.” The Union’s “policy vis-à-vis the import of goods from the settlements” might need to be revisited, but only as a matter of political consideration.
He also broods about such “legal consequences” arising from the opinion, including further litigation in national courts over “arms sales or other form of assistance to Israel” based on the nexus with the OPTs and the exacerbation of “the already existing boycotts and citizens petitions for a total ban on trade with products originating in the settlements.”
Legal analysts have been unimpressed by Hoffmeister’s analysis, seeing it as a confusion of aims. Susan Akram of the Boston University School of Law’s International Human Rights clinic put it simply: “Current [EU] policy is non-compliant with the ICJ opinion, and that is not a matter, as the EU opinion states, ‘of further political appreciation whether to revisit EU policy.’” The ICJ’s opinion was hard to mistake or misinterpret: all aid and assistance of any kind by the international community had to cease. For Akram, this meant a revision of EU policy “to end any and all trade, funding or other assistance that in any way supports the Israeli occupation.”
The United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese, also takes strong issue with such “bending of rules for political convenience” thereby creating a precedent by treating obligations under ICJ advisory opinions “as optional, especially amid ongoing atrocities.” The approach was “legally flawed, politically damaging, and morally compromised.” Not an inaccurate assessment, and most applicable to the bloc’s approach to other areas of international law, most strikingly that of refugees. On such matters, a visible political latitude arises in defiance of legal obligations. Just don’t publicly mention it.
The post The EU’s Legal Stance on Goods from Israel’s Illegal Settlements first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has “cleared the air” with the Fijian diaspora in Samoa over Fiji’s vote against the United Nations resolution on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People.
He denied that Fiji — the only country to vote against the resolution — had “pressed the wrong button”.
And he described last week’s vote as an “ambush resolution”, claiming it was not the one they had agreed on during the voting of the UN Special Committee of Decolonisation, reports The Fiji Times.
However, a prominent Fiji civil society and human rights advocate condemned his statement and also Fiji’s UN voting.
Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC) coordinator Shamima Ali said she was “ashamed” of Fiji’s stance over genocide in Palestine, its vote against ceasefire and “not wanting decolonisation”.
In Apia, Rabuka, who leaves for Kanaky New Caledonia on Sunday to take part in the Pacific Islands Forum’s “Troika Plus” talks on the French Pacific’s territory amid indigenous demands for independence, told The Fiji Times:
“We will not tell them we pressed the wrong button. We will tell them that the resolution was an ambush resolution, it is not something that we have been talking about.”
‘Serious student of colonisation’
The Prime Minister said he had been a “serious student of colonisation and decolonisation”.
“They started with the C-12, but now it’s C-24 members of the [UN] committee that talks about decolonisation.
“I was wondering if anyone would complain about my going [to Kanaky New Caledonia] next week because C-24 met last week and there was a vote on decolonisation.”
According to an RNZ Pacific interview, Rabuka had told the Kanak independence movement:”Don’t slap the hand that has fed you.”
Fiji was the only country that voted against the UN resolution while 99 voted for the resolution and 61 countries, including colonisers such as France, United Kingdom and the United States, abstained.
Another coloniser, Indonesia (West Papua), voted for it.
“I thought the [indigenous] people of the Kanaky of New Caledonia would object to my coming, so far we have not heard anything from them.
“So, I am hoping that no one will bring that up, but if they do bring it up, we have a perfect answer.”
Human rights advocate Shamima Ali said in a statement on social media it was “unbelievable” that Prime Minister Rabuka claimed to be “a serious student of colonisation and decolonisation” while leading a government that had been “blatantly complicit in the genocide of innocent Palestinians”.
“No amount of public statements and explanations will save this Coalition government from the mess it has created on the international stage, especially at the United Nations.
“We are ashamed of having a government that supports an occupation, votes against a ceasefire and does not want decolonisation in the world.
“Trust between the Fijian people and their government is being eroded, especially on matters of global significance that reflect on the entire nation.”
According to the government, Fiji is one of two Pacific countries which are members of the Special Committee on Decolonisation or C-24 and have been a consistent voice in addressing the issue of decolonisation.
Through the C-24 and the Fourth Committee, Fiji aligns with the positions undertaken by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), in its support for the annual resolution on decolonisation entitled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.
Government reiterated its support of the regional position of the Forum, and the MSG on decolonisation and self-determination, as enshrined in the UN Charter.
The Fiji Permanent Mission in New York, led by Filipo Tarakinikini, is working with the Forum Secretariat to clarify the matter within its process.
Rabuka is currently in Samoa for the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), which is being held in the Pacific for the first time.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin
In the lead up to the inauguration of President Prabowo Subianto last Sunday, Indonesia established five “Vulnerable Area Buffer Infantry Battalions” in key regions across West Papua — a move described by Indonesian Army Chief-of-Staff Maruli Simanjuntak as a “strategic initiative” by the new leader.
The battalions are based in the Keerom, Sarmi, Boven Digoel, Merauke and Sorong regencies, and their aim is to “enhance security” in Papua, and also to strengthen Indonesia’s military presence in response to long-standing unrest and conflict, partly related to independence movements and local resistance.
According to Armed Forces chief General Agus Subiyanto, “the main goal of the new battalions is to assist the government in accelerating development and improving the prosperity of the Papuan people”.
However, this raises concerns about further militarisation and repression of a region already plagued by long-running violence and human rights abuses in the context of the movement for a free and independent West Papua.
Thousands of Indonesian soldiers have been stationed in areas impacted by violence, including Star Mountain, Nduga, Yahukimo, Maybrat, Intan Jaya, Puncak and Puncak Jaya.
As a result, the situation in West Papua is becoming increasingly difficult for indigenous people.
Extrajudicial killings in Papua go unreported or are only vaguely known about internationally. Those who are aware of these either disregard them or accept them as an “unavoidable consequence” of civil unrest in what Indonesia refers to as its most eastern provinces — the “troubled regions”.
Why do the United Nations, Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the international community stay silent?
While the Indonesian government frames this move as a strategy to enhance security and promote development, it risks exacerbating long-standing tensions in a region with deep-seated conflicts over autonomy and independence and the impacts of extractive industries and agribusiness on West Papuan people and their environment.
Exploitative land theft
The Centre for Climate Crime and Climate Justice, in collaboration with various international and Indonesian human and environmental rights organisations, presented testimony at the public hearings of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) at Queen Mary University of London, in June.
The tribunal heard testimonies relating to a range of violations by Indonesia. A key issue, highlighted was the theft of indigenous Papuan land by the Indonesian government and foreign corporations in connection to extractive industries such as mining, logging and palm oil plantations.
The appropriation of traditional lands without the consent of the Papuan people violates their right to land and self-determination, leading to environmental degradation, loss of livelihood, and displacement of Indigenous communities.
The tribunal’s judgment underscores how the influx of non-Papuan settlers and the Indonesian government’s policies have led to the marginalisation of Papuan culture and identity. The demographic shift due to transmigration programmes has significantly reduced the proportion of Indigenous Papuans in their own land.
Moreover, a rise in militarisation in West Papua has often led to heightened repression, with potential human rights violations, forced displacement and further marginalisation of the indigenous communities.
The decision to station additional military forces in West Papua, especially in conflict-prone areas like Nduga, Yahukimo and Intan Jaya, reflects a continuation of Indonesia’s militarised approach to governance in the region.
Security pact
The Indonesia-Papua New Guinea Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) was signed by the two countries in 2010 but only came into effect this year after the PNG Parliament ratified it in late February.
Indonesia ratified the pact in 2012.
As reported by Asia Pacific Report, PNG’s Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko and Indonesia’s ambassador to PNG, Andriana Supandy, said the DCA enabled an enhancement of military operations between the two countries, with a specific focus on strengthening patrols along the PNG-West Papua border.
This will have a significant impact on civilian communities in the areas of conflict and along the border. Indigenous people in particular, are facing the threat of military takeovers of their lands and traditional border lines.
Under the DCA, the joint militaries plan to employ technology, including military drones, to monitor and manage local residents’ every move along the border.
Human rights
Prabowo, Defence Minister prior to being elected President, has a controversial track record on human rights — especially in the 1990s, during Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor.
His involvement in military operations in West Papua adds to fears that the new battalions may be used for oppressive measures, including crackdowns on dissent and pro-independence movements.
As indigenous communities continue to be marginalised, their calls for self-determination and independence may grow louder, risking further conflict in the region.
Without substantial changes in the Indonesian government’s approach to West Papua, including addressing human rights abuses and engaging in meaningful dialogue with indigenous leaders, the future of West Papuans remains uncertain and fraught with challenges.
With ongoing military operations often accused of targeting indigenous populations, the likelihood of further human rights violations, such as extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and forced displacement, remains high.
Displacement
Military operations in West Papua frequently result in the displacement of indigenous Papuans, as they flee conflict zones.
The presence of more battalions could drive more communities from their homes, deepening the humanitarian crisis in the region. Indigenous peoples, who rely on their land for survival, face disruption of their traditional livelihoods and rising poverty.
The Indonesian government launched the Damai Cartenz military operation on April 5, 2018, and it is still in place in the conflict zones of Yahukimo, Pegunungan Bintang, Nduga and Intan Jaya.
Since then, according to a September 24 Human Rights Monitor update, more than 79,867 West Papuans remain internally displaced.
The displacement, killings, shootings, abuses, tortures and deaths are merely the tip of the iceberg of what truly occurs within the tightly-controlled military operational zones across West Papua, according to Benny Wenda, a UK-based leader of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP).
The international community, particularly the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum have been criticised for remaining largely silent on the matter. Responding to the August 31 PIF communique reaffirming its 2019 call for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visit to West Papua, Wenda said:
“[N]ow is the time for Indonesia to finally let the world see what is happening in our land. They cannot hide their dirty secret any longer.”
Increased global attention and intervention is crucial in addressing the humanitarian crisis, preventing further escalations and supporting the rights and well-being of the West Papuans.
Without meaningful dialogue, the long-term consequences for the indigenous population may be severe, risking further violence and unrest in the region.
As Prabowo was sworn in, Wenda restated the ULMWP’s demand for an internationally-mediated referendum on independence, saying: “The continued violation of our self-determination is the root cause of the West Papua conflict.”
Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He is a contributor to Asia Pacific Report and Green Left in Australia.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Israel’s genocide has so devastated every aspect of Gaza’s infrastructure and economy that it would take centuries just to restore the Gaza Strip’s GDP back to the already-depressed level from 2022, the UN has found in a report. Based on the growth rate of Gaza’s economy under Israeli blockade between 2007 and 2022, it would take 350 years to restore Gaza’s GDP from before the genocide…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Israeli forces have attacked UN peacekeepers in Lebanon at least a dozen times in recent weeks, including one attack in which 15 peacekeepers were injured by white phosphorus, according to a new report. The Financial Times says there have been a dozen Israeli attacks on UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peacekeepers, damaging bases and wounding peacekeepers, according to a leaked report by…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
A United Nations report published Tuesday estimates that Israel’s relentless bombardment and siege of the Gaza Strip has erased nearly seven decades of human development progress in just over a year, jeopardizing “the future of Palestinians for generations to come.” The report, produced by the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) and the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, the UN Human Rights Office has stressed in a comment to the Russian newspaper Izvestia following an armed raid on a church in central Ukraine earlier this week.
On Thursday, videos emerged on social media showing dozens of armed men in military-style clothing clashing with believers at St. Michael’s Cathedral, belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), in the city of Cherkasy.
The unidentified raiders reportedly used tear gas, smoke grenades and fired a gas pistol into the crowd. Icons, documents and some $60,000 – raised by the congregation for the needs of the church – were reportedly stolen. At least 12 people were hospitalized as a result of the standoff, according to the UOC. It blamed the attack on “schismatics” from the Kiev-backed Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).
A representative of the UN Human Rights Office told Izvestia on Friday that “while we cannot yet confirm the specific details of these events, we emphasize that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right.”
“Attacks on civilian believers are prohibited under international human rights and humanitarian norms,” the representative was quoted as saying.
Ukrainian diocese ‘goes underground’ after raid on cathedral
The Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine is currently working to establish additional details on the incident, the official added.
In an earlier comment to TASS, the press service of the UN Human Rights Office called the videos of the church raid in Cherkasy “alarming.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday that Moscow calls on “the relevant international human rights organizations” to look into the attack.
“The Kiev regime is doing everything it can to outlaw and disband the canonical church [UOC]. And [Ukrainian leader Vladimir] Zelensky’s Western backers continue to indulge in deepening the religious schism in Ukraine,” Zakharova stressed.
Ukraine has been gripped by religious tensions for years, with two rival entities claiming to be the country’s true Orthodox Church.
The Kiev government supports the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), which was created only in 2018 and which the Russian Orthodox Church considers schismatic. Zelensky has explained the moves against the UOC by citing its alleged links to the Moscow Patriarchate and the need to protect Ukraine’s “spiritual independence” and deprive Russia of an opportunity to “to manipulate the spirituality of our people.”
The persecution of the UOC intensified after the outbreak of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022. Several of its churches have been seized by force, and criminal cases have been opened against clerics. A law banning the activities of the UOC in Ukraine officially came into force in late September.
The post Armed Raid on Cathedral in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
At the 57th Human Rights Council session, civil society organisations share reflections on key outcomes and highlight gaps in addressing crucial issues and situations. Full written version below:
States continue to fail to meet their obligations under international law to put an end to decades of Israeli crimes committed against the Palestinian people, including the genocide in Gaza, and most recently Israel’s war on Lebanon. States that continue to provide military, economic and political support to Israel, while suppressing fundamental freedoms such as expression and assembly, as well as attacking independent courts and experts, and defunding humanitarian aid (UNRWA), are complicit in the commission of crimes. We urge the Council to address the root causes of the situation as identified by experts and the ICJ, including settler-colonialism and apartheid, and to address the obligations of third States in the context of the ICJ’s provisional measures stressing the plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and the ICJ advisory opinion recognising that ‘Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD’ pertaining to racial segregation and apartheid. The General Assembly adopted the resolution titled “The Crime of Genocide” in December 1946, which articulates that the denial of existence of entire human groups shocks the conscience of mankind. We remind you of our collective duty and moral responsibility to stop genocide.
States have an obligation to pay UN membership dues in full and in time. The failure of many States to do so, often for politically motivated reasons, is causing a financial liquidity crisis, meaning that resolutions and mandates of the Human Rights Council cannot be implemented. Pay your dues! The visa denials to civil society by host countries is a recurring obstacle to accessing the UN; and acts of intimidation and reprisals are fundamental attacks against the UN system itself. The right to access and communicate with international bodies is firmly grounded in international law and pivotal to the advancement of human rights. In this regard, we welcome the action taken by 11 States to call for investigation and accountability for reprisals against individually named human rights defenders. This sends an important message of solidarity to defenders, many of whom are arbitrarily detained for contributing to the work of the UN, as well as increasing the political costs for perpetrators of such acts. We welcome progress in Indigenous Peoples’ participation in the work of this Council as it is the first time that they could register on their own for specific dialogues.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution that renews the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change by consensus.
We also welcome the adoption of the resolution on biodiversity sending a clear call to take more ambitious commitments at the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and acknowledging the negative impact that the loss of biodiversity can have on the enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We welcome that these two resolutions recognize the critical and positive role that Environmental Human Right Defenders play. We also welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolutions on the rights on safe drinking water and sanitation; and the resolution on human rights and Indigenous Peoples.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on equal participation in political and public affairs which for the first time includes language on children and recognises their right to participation as well as the transformative role of civic education in supporting their participation. We also welcome the recognition that hate speech has a restrictive effect on children’s full, meaningful, inclusive and safe participation in political and public affairs.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution from rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The resolution contains important language on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as well as the proclamation by the General Assembly of a second International Decade for People of African Descent commencing in 2025. We welcome the inclusion of a call to States to dispense reparatory justice, including finding ways to remedy historical racial injustices. This involves ensuring that the structures in society that perpetuate past injustices are transformed, including law enforcement and the administration of justice.
We welcome the adoption of a new resolution on human rights on the internet, which recognises that universal and meaningful connectivity is essential for the enjoyment of human rights. The resolution takes a progressive step forward in specifically recommending diverse and human right-based technological solutions to advance connectivity, including through governments creating an enabling and inclusive regulatory environment for small, non-profit and community internet operators. These solutions are particularly essential in ensuring connectivity for remote or rural communities. The resolution also unequivocally condemns internet shutdowns, online censorship, surveillance, and other measures that impede universal and meaningful connectivity. We now call on all Sates to fully implement the commitments in the resolution and ensure the same rights that people have offline are also protected online.
Whilst we welcome the attention in the resolution on the human rights of migrants to dehumanising, harmful and racist narratives about migration, we are disappointed that the resolution falls short of the calls from civil society, supported by the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, for the Human Rights Council to set up an independent and international monitoring mechanism to address deaths, torture and other grave human rights violations at borders. Such a mechanism would not only support prevention and accountability – it would provide a platform for the people at the heart of these human rights violations and abuses to be heard. The study and intersessional mandated in this resolution must be used to enhance independent monitoring and increase access to justice.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Afghanistan renewing and strengthening the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Crucially, the resolution recognises the need to ensure accountability in Afghanistan through “comprehensive, multidimensional, gender-responsive and victim-centred” processes applying a “comprehensive approach to transitional justice.” However, we are disappointed that the resolution once again failed to establish an independent accountability mechanism that can undertake comprehensive investigations and collect and preserve evidence and information of violations and abuses in line with these principles to assist future and ongoing accountability processes. This not only represents a failure by the Council to respond to the demands of many Afghan and international civil society organisations, but also a failure to fulfil its own mandate to ensure prompt, independent and impartial investigations which this and all previous resolutions have recognised as urgent.
We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur on Burundi.
We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation. The human rights situation in Russia continues to deteriorate, with the alarming expansion of anti-extremism legislation now also targeting LGBT+ and Indigenous organisations being just the latest example of this trend. The Special Rapporteur has highlighted how such repression against civil society within Russia over many years has facilitated its external aggression. The mandate itself remains a vital lifeline for Russian civil society, connecting it with the Human Rights Council and the broader international community, despite the Russian authorities’ efforts to isolate their people.
We welcome the resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka renewing for one year the mandate of the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project and of the High Commissioner to monitor and report on the situation. Its consensual adoption represents the broad recognition by the Council of the crucial need for continued international action to promote accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka and keeps the hopes of tens of thousands of victims, their families and survivors who, more than 15 years after the end of the war, continue to wait for justice and accountability. However, the resolution falls short in adequately responding to the calls by civil society. It fails to extend these mandates for two years which would have ensured that the Sri Lanka Accountability Project has the resources, capacity and stability to fulfill its mandate.
We welcome the renewal of the Fact Finding Mission on Sudan with broader support (23 votes in favor in comparison to 19 votes last year, and 12 votes against in comparison to 16 votes last year). This responds to the calls by 80 Sudanese, African, and other international NGOs for an extension of the mandate of the FFM for Sudan. We further reiterate our urgent calls for an immediate ceasefire and the prompt creation of safe corridors for humanitarian aid organisations and groups, and to guarantee the safety of their operations, as well as our call on the UN Security Council to extend the arms embargo on Darfur to all of Sudan and create effective monitoring and reporting mechanisms to ensure the implementation of the embargo.
We welcome the renewal of the mandates of the Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela (FFM) and of OHCHR for two more years. The deepening repression at the hands of government forces following the fraudulent Presidential elections in July has made evident the vital importance of continued independent documenting, monitoring and reporting by the FFM and its role in early warning of further human rights deterioration. We are pleased that OHCHR is mandated to provide an oral update (with an ID) at the end of this year. This will be key ahead of the end of the term of the current presidency on 10 January 2025. This resolution is an important recognition of and contribution to the demands of victims and civil society for accountability.
We regret that the Council failed to take action on Bangladesh. We welcome Bangladesh’s cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights including by inviting the Office to undertake investigations into allegations of serious violations and abuses in the context of youth-led protests in July and August, as well as positive steps by the interim government. However, we believe that a Council mandate would provide much needed support, stability and legitimacy to these positive initiatives at a time of serious political uncertainty in the country.
The Council’s persistent inaction and indifference in the face of Yemen’s escalating human rights crisis is deeply troubling. Since the dissolution of the Group of Eminent Experts, and despite years of mounting atrocities, we have yet to see the type of robust, independent international investigation that is desperately needed. Instead, the Council’s approach has been marked by half-measures and complacency, allowing widespread violations to continue unchecked. Despite the precarious humanitarian situation, the recent campaign of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention by the de facto Houthi authorities and recent Israeli bombardments, Yemen has increasingly become a forgotten crisis. The current resolution on Yemen represents this failure. Technical assistance without reporting or discussion is an insufficient response. The decision to forgo an interactive dialogue on implementing this assistance is an oversight, undermining the principles of accountability and transparency. We welcome the inclusion of language in the resolution recognizing the vital role of NGO workers and humanitarian staff who the Houthis have arbitrarily detained. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of those who continue to be detained for nothing more than attempting to ensure the rule of law is respected and victims are protected. We urge this Council to act decisively, prioritize the creation of an independent international accountability mechanism, and place civilian protection at the forefront of its deliberations on Yemen.
We continue to deplore this Council’s exceptionalism towards serious human rights violations in China committed by the government. On 17 August, the OHCHR stressed that ‘many problematic laws and policies’ documented in its Xinjiang report remain in place, that abuses remain to be investigated, and that reprisals and lack of information hinder human rights monitoring. We welcome the statement by the Xinjiang Core Group on the second anniversary of the OHCHR’s Xinjiang report, regretting the government’s lack of meaningful cooperation with UN bodies, the rejection of UPR recommendations, and urging China to engage meaningfully to implement the OHCHR’s recommendations, including releasing all those arbitrarily detained, clarifying the whereabouts of those disappeared, and facilitating family reunion. It is imperative that the Human Rights Council take action commensurate to the gravity of UN findings, such as by establishing a monitoring and reporting mechanism on China as repeatedly urged by over 40 UN experts since 2020. We urge China to genuinely engage with the UN human rights system to enact meaningful reform, and ensure all individuals and peoples enjoy their human rights. Recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, UN Treaty Bodies, and UN Special Procedures chart the way for this desperately needed change.
Finally, we welcome the outcome of elections to the Human Rights Council at the General Assembly. States that are responsible for atrocity crimes, the widespread repression of civil society, and patterns of reprisals are not qualified to be elected to this Council. The outcomes of the election demonstrate the importance of all regions fielding competitive slates that are comprised of appropriately qualified candidates.
Signatories:
https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc57-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-the-session
see:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/11/us-un-human-rights-israel
Following a concerted campaign led by ISHR together with other civil society partners, Saudi Arabia was just defeated in its bid to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council!
We get an update on Israel’s war on Lebanon from journalist Rania Abouzeid in Beirut. “We are seeing a definite escalation that started a month ago and doesn’t show any sign of letting up,” she observes, describing unrestrained attacks by Israel throughout the country, on all sectors of society, as Israel carries out its “Dahiya doctrine” in an attempt to foment division among the Lebanese…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.