Posts Tagged ‘Israeli–Palestinian conflict’

Venezuela’s opposition wins top EU human rights award

October 27, 2024
Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado Speaks After Presidential Election
Democratic leader María Corina Machado and exiled presidential candidate Edmundo González won the top human rights award for representing all Venezuelans who are “fighting for the restoration of freedom and democracy.” | Marcelo Perez del Carpio/Getty Images

The European Parliament on Thursday 24 October 2024 awarded the Sakharov Prize to Venezuela’s opposition leaders. Democratic leader María Corina Machado and exiled presidential candidate Edmundo González won the top human rights award for representing all Venezuelans who are “fighting for the restoration of freedom and democracy.”

The Venezuelan opposition leaders were nominated by the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the hard-right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The far-right Patriots group rallied behind them after their original candidate, tech billionaire Elon Musk, failed to make the shortlist for the prestigious prize.

After Venezuela’s elections in late July, in which incumbent socialist President Nicolás Maduro declared victory for another term, the European Union’s foreign service said it would not recognize the results because the government had failed to release supporting voting records from polling stations. 

The authoritarian Maduro’s disputed declaration of victory sparked massive opposition protests and a violent government crackdown that left more than two dozen people dead and nearly 200 injured.

Later, presidential candidate González — who fled to Madrid during the crackdown — was recognized by the European Parliament as the country’s legitimate leader.

For more on the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought and its laureates see: https://trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/BDE3E41A-8706-42F1-A6C5-ECBBC4CDB449

Two other finalists made the shortlist. One was Gubad Ibadoghlu, a jailed Azerbaijani dissident and critic of the fossil fuel industry nominated by the Greens. The other finalist was a joint nomination of Israeli and Palestinian peace organizations Women Wage Peace and Women of the Sun. The groups, who announced a partnership in 2022, were nominated by the Socialists and the Renew group.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-human-rights-award-venezuela-opposition-maria-corina-machado-edmundo-gonzalez-nicolas-maduro/

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241017IPR24738/maria-corina-machado-and-edmundo-gonzalez-urrutia-awarded-2024-sakharov-prize

see: https://www.lapatilla.com/2024/10/26/at-least-900-people-arrested-after-venezuelas-post-election-protests-are-being-held-in-tocoron-prison/

Germany’s fear of being seen as antisemitic goes over the top

December 21, 2023

On 20 December 2023 Jakob Guhl posted in Index on Censorship a piece stating that German authorities are increasingly silencing pro-Palestine activism in an effort to stamp out anything they fear could be seen as antisemitic. He makes some excellent points (which apply also outside Germany):

..The seemingly isolated incidents highlighted in this article are piling up and the curtailing of civic space is starting to be noticed internationally: Civicus, which ranks countries by freedom of expression rights, recently downgraded Germany in a review from “open” to “restricted” due to repression of pro-Palestinian voices, as well as of climate activists…

There are long-standing disagreements around where to draw the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and attacks on Israel that single it out because it is a Jewish state, are expressed in antisemitic ways or are motivated by antisemitic views. For example, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism acknowledges that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” but identifies seven examples of when attacks on Israel may be antisemitic (taking into account the overall context). For example, it could be antisemitic to reference classic antisemitic tropes such as the blood libel conspiracy myth to describe Israel, deny the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or blame Jews collectively for the actions of Israel, according to IHRA.

While Germany has adopted IHRA, much looser standards seem to be applied by authorities and commentators committed to tackling Israel-related antisemitism. Calls for a binational state, advocacy for the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) or accusations that Israel is committing Apartheid are regularly identified as antisemitic. There is a strong sense that given its historical responsibility, it is not Germany’s place to judge, or let anyone else judge, Israel even as its offensive in Gaza has resulted in one of the highest rates of death in armed conflict since the beginning of the 21st century, and disproportionately affects civilians. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/01/18/israel-and-apartheid-israeli-human-rights-group-stirs-debate/]..

The debates since 7 October have created an atmosphere in which pro-Palestinian voices are more and more stigmatised. Pro-Palestinian protests have repeatedly been banned by local authorities. Their dystopian rationale for these bans revolves around the idea that, based on assessments of previous marches, crimes are likely to be committed by protesters. The practice is not new: in the past, German police have even banned protests commemorating the Nakba (Arabic for “catastrophe”), the collective mass expulsion and displacement of around 700,000 Palestinians from their homes during the 1947-49 wars following the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine by the United Nations. In reaction to pro-Palestine protests since 7 October, the antisemitism commissioner of North Rhine Westphalia and former federal justice minister even suggested the police should pay closer attention to the nationality of pro-Palestine protest organisers as protests organised by non-Germans could be banned more easily.

Furthermore, pro-Palestinian political symbols are being falsely associated with Hamas or other pro-terrorist organisations. In early November, the Federal Interior Ministry banned the chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” as a symbol of both Hamas and Samidoun, a support network for the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the European Union.

While one plausible interpretation of the “From the River to the Sea” slogan is that it is a call for the destruction of Israel, it is equally plausible to understand it as a call for a binational state with full equality of all citizens. Without context, the slogan cannot automatically be identified as antisemitic, though it is of course entirely legitimate to criticise this ambivalence. As has been extensively documented, the slogan does not originate with nor is exclusively used by Hamas.

Apart from being based on misinformation, banning “From the River to the Sea” has also created the ludicrous situation that the German police force is asked to make assessments on whether holding a “From the River we do see nothing like equality” placard is an expression of support for terrorism. A former advisor to Angela Merkel even called for the German citizenship of a previously stateless Palestinian woman to be revoked who posted a similar slogan (“From the River to the Sea #FreePalestine”) on her Instagram.

In some cases, these dynamics venture into the absurd. On 14 October, the activist Iris Hefets was temporarily detained in Berlin for holding a placard that read: “As a Jew & an Israeli Stop the Genocide in Gaza.”

These illiberal and ill-conceived measures are not limited to protests. In response to the 7 October attacks, authorities in Berlin allowed schools to ban students from wearing keffiyeh scarves to not “endanger school peace”.

Curtailing civic spaces

While these trends have been accelerated since 7 October, they predate it. In 2019, the German Bundestag passed a resolution that condemned the BDS movement as antisemitic. It referenced the aforementioned IHRA definition of antisemitism (which does not comment on boycotts), compared the BDS campaign to the Nazi boycotts of Jewish business and called on authorities to no longer fund groups or individuals that support BDS.

BDS calls for the boycott of Israeli goods, divestment from companies involved in the occupation of Arab territories and sanctions to force the Israeli government to comply with international law and respect the rights of Palestinians, including the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Inspired by the boycott campaign against Apartheid South Africa, BDS has attracted many supporters, but critics have claimed that BDS singles out Israel and delegitimises its existence. Accusations of antisemitism within the movement should of course be taken seriously: BDS supporters have previously been accused of employing antisemitic rhetoric about malign Jewish influence and intimidating Jewish students on campus. However, many of BDS’ core demands are clearly not antisemitic. Since the BDS lacks a central leadership that would issue official stances, it is difficult to make blanket statements about the movement in its entirety.

The 2019 resolution is now being cited to shut down cultural events. A planned exhibition in Essen on Afrofuturism was cancelled over social media posts that, according to the museum, “do not acknowledge the terroristic attack of the Hamas and consider the Israeli military operation in Gaza a genocide” and expressed support for BDS. The Frankfurt book fair “indefinitely postponed” a literary prize for the Palestinian author Adania Shibli, after one member of the jury resigned due to supposed anti-Israel and antisemitic themes in her book. Shibli has since been accused by the left-wing Taz newspaper of being an “engaged BDS supporter” for having signed one BDS letter in 2007 and a 2019 letter that criticised the city of Dortmund for revoking another literary price for an author that supports BDS. A presentation by the award-winning Forensic Architecture research group at Goldsmiths (University of London), which has analysed human rights abuses in SyriaVenezuela and Palestine as well as Neo-Nazi murders in Germany, was likewise cancelled by the University of Aachen which cited the group’s founder Eyal Weizman’s support for BDS.

The curtailing of civic space increasingly affects voices that have stood up for human rights at great personal risk. The Syrian opposition activist Wafa Ali Mustafa was detained by Berlin police near a pro-Palestine protest, reportedly for wearing a keffiyeh scarf. Similarly, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, which is associated with the centre-left Green Party, pulled out of the Hannah Arendt prize ceremony, which was due to be awarded to the renowned Russian dissident, philosopher and human rights advocate Masha Gessen. Despite acknowledging differences between the two, Gessen had compared Gaza to the Jewish ghettoes in Nazi-occupied Europe in an article about the politics of memory in Germany, the Soviet Union, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and Israel.

Conversation stoppers

Alarm bells should ring as one of Europe’s major liberal democracies has taken an authoritarian turn in the aftermath of 7 October. Germany’s noble commitment to its historical responsibility in the face of rising antisemitism is morphing into a suppression of voices advocating for Palestinian political self-determination and human rights.

In this distorted reality, civic spaces are eroded, cultural symbols banned, political symbols falsely conflated with support for terrorism and events are shut down. So far, there has been little pushback or critical debate about these worrying developments. To the contrary: politicians, foundations, cultural institutions and media outlets seem to be closing ranks under the shadow of the 2019 BDS resolution and a skewed interpretation of the IHRA definition.

Following the appalling violence committed by Hamas on 7 October, and the scale of civilian suffering in Gaza due to the subsequent Israeli military offensive, polarisation and tension between communities have been on the rise. In this context, it is crucial to be able to have passionate, empathetic, controversial and nuanced discussions about the conflict, its history, the present impasse, potential ways forward and its impact on Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities abroad. With the voices of activists, authors and even internationally renowned human rights advocates being increasingly isolated, these vital exchanges are prevented from taking place.

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2023/12/from-the-danube-to-the-baltic-sea-germany-takes-an-authoritarian-turn/

Human rights defenders in Palestine and Israel

December 18, 2023

While the war rages in Gaza, the media focus is understandably on the conduct of the war and the many victims. Still, it is good to focus on the role of HRDs and that is what Front Line Defenders has done on 15 December 2023.

Front Line Defenders has been receiving reports from human rights defenders in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel on an ongoing basis in recent months, updating on the dire circumstances they have been facing since 7 October 2023.

This has included serious risks to life and safety amid Israel’s relentless bombardment and siege of Gaza, as well as increased violence and harassment targeting Palestinian HRDs in the West Bank and Israel. Meanwhile, some governments have decided to suspend or review funding to Palestinian and Israeli civil society organisations, further contributing to the hardships faced by HRDs at this critical time. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/11/02/not-the-moment-for-switzerland-to-suspend-funding-for-human-rights-defenders-in-israel-and-palestine/]

Here you can find Front Line Defenders’ public responses to the challenges faced by HRDs:

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/human-rights-defenders-occupied-palestinian-territory-and-israel-0

on 20 December it added a Statement:

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/israelopt-deep-concern-enforced-disappearance-detention-and-ill-treatment-human

Palestinian and Israeli peace defenders share hope for peace

December 5, 2023

On 4 December 2023 he Middle East Monitor published this rare event: Palestinian and Israeli peace activists share hope for peace and better future

Speaking at an interfaith peace vigil organised by Together for Humanity at Downing Street in London, UK, Palestinian peace activist Hamza Awad and Israeli peace activist Magen Inon emphasised the crucial importance of promoting peace and mourning the lives lost. In an interview with BBC News, they shared the success of the event in bringing people together during challenging times, and said they hope for a better future where their children could grow up not hating or fearing anyone.

Results of the 54th session of the UN Human Rights Council

October 15, 2023

On 13 October 2023 the ISHR and other NGOs shared their reflections on the key outcomes of the 54th session of the UN Human Rights Council [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/09/11/human-rights-defenders-at-the-54th-session-of-the-un-human-rights-council/:

…We firmly condemn all crimes and other grave violations under international law committed by both Israel and Palestinian armed groups. Targeted and indiscriminate attacks against civilians can never be justified. We call on the ICC Office of the Prosecutor to accelerate its investigation into serious crimes committed by all parties in Palestine and Israel. We call on Israel to ratify the Rome Statute, and for the ICC to hold both State and non-State perpetrators of international crimes accountable. We call on the Commission of Inquiry to address the situation within the context of its root causes: settler colonialism, apartheid, and denial of the fundamental rights to self-determination and return of the Palestinian people, all amounting to grave violations of international law. We call on governments to immediately stop providing political and military support to Israel, while Ministers manifest a genocidal intent against Palestinians. On 9 October 2023, Yoav Gallant, Israel’s Minister of Defense, stated: “We are imposing a complete siege on [Gaza]. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly”. We deplore the dehumanization of all people, including not mentioning  Palestinian civilians’ killings in statements in this Council. As we gear up to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, we remind this Council that for 75 years, generations of people in Gaza and historic Palestine have not been born free and equal in dignity and rights. Until this is addressed, the cycles of violence will not end. As Israel continues to bomb the Rafah crossing, the international community has a duty to guarantee immediate humanitarian access to besieged Gaza. We call on States to establish an international protective presence in the OPT, as called for by UN Special Procedures.  For 75 years, the international community has enabled impunity and failed to fulfill the right to self-determination of Palestinian people, including through their legitimate right to resist colonialism.

The Council has shown that it does have an important role to play in addressing violations amidst multiple human rights crises. We welcome the establishment of the mechanism on Sudan and the extension of the Special Rapporteur on Russia, inter alia, in this regard. But these stand in stark contrast to its failure to renew the critical mandate on Ethiopia, particularly in light of the expert finding of the acute risk of ongoing and further atrocity crimes, as well as other Council blind spots where mounting human rights violations remain ignored. We stress the need for the Council to take a principled approach and to address situations on their merits. 

We remain deeply concerned about reprisals against civil society actors who engage or seek to engage with UN bodies and mechanisms. We call on all States and the Council to do more to address the situation, including raise concerns about specific cases of reprisals and demand that governments provide an update on any investigation or action taken toward accountability. We welcome the adoption of the resolution on cooperation with the UN, including the reference to adequately resourced dedicated civil society focal points, however we are disappointed that several proposals by States and civil society to strengthen the text were not taken on board. The Secretary General’s most recent report on reprisals notes increased physical and digital surveillance of those cooperating with the UN and application of laws aimed at punishing or deterring cooperation. While the resolution takes notes of these trends we regret that the resolution does not fully address how these should be addressed. We welcome the strong focus on prevention and emphasis given to accountability. Nonetheless, the preventative role the Council could play in regard to reprisals, as signs of deterioration in civic space conditions, is overlooked. In addition, States’ monitoring and reporting responsibilities in relation to allegations of acts of intimidation or reprisal could be addressed more fully. Also, we welcome the call to the SG for adequate resources to be allocated to OHCHR to prevent and address allegations.

We welcome the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, which reiterates that PMMM is a human rights issue that requires a human rights-based approach response, centering inter alia the principles of accountability, meaningful participation of primarily affected people, non-discrimination and equality and transparency. The resolution aims at garnering political will to curb maternal mortality and morbidity rates that have been stagnating and failing to meet SDGs targets. The resolution rightly highlights the full realization of the right to sexual and reproductive health and the provision of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services, including comprehensive sexuality education and safe abortion (with the caveat of not when against national law), as pre-conditions to lower PMMM. We welcome the call to update the technical guidance on a HRBA to PMMM. We however deplore the amendments put forward seeking to weaken the text and apply a protectionist lens to women’s rights to bodily autonomy, taking away their agency and their status of full rights holders under IHRL.

We express our support for a new resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age, which contains strong new standards under the theme of data protection. The resolution also contains stronger language on remote biometric surveillance systems, such as facial recognition, stressing that they raise serious concerns with regard to their proportionality. While we applaud that the resolution acknowledges that some applications of new and emerging technologies may not be compatible with international human rights law, we call for future iterations to take a step further in establishing “red lines” and to call for bans of such technologies. We also urge the core group to address other emerging issues for the right to privacy in the future, such as social media monitoring.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the question of the death penalty aimed at ensuring that criminal justice systems are consistent with international human rights obligations in relation to capital punishment, with a focus on the relation between Art 6 and Art 14 of the ICCPR, particularly on the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence, and the right to have one’s conviction reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. In accordance with the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council Resolution 1984/50. We welcome that any attempt by a number of States to undermine the aim of the resolution through a number of amendments, have been rejected.           

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’ and the mandate renewal of the Working Group of Experts of People of African Descent (WGEPAD). We welcome that the rhetoric to reality resolution, interalia, strongly condemns the discriminatory treatment, unlawful deportations, excessive use of force and deaths of African migrants and migrants of African descent, including refugees and asylum-seekers, at the hands of law enforcement officials engaged in migration and border governance. It calls on States to ensure accountability and reparations for human rights violations at borders and to adopt a racial justice approach, including by adopting policies to address structural racism in the management of international migration. However, we regret that it did not reiterate that the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism were grave violations of international law that require States to make reparations proportionate to the harms committed and to ensure that structures in the society that are perpetuating the injustices of the past are transformed, including law enforcement and the administration of justice. We urge all States to fully implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA). We also call on States to fully cooperate with the WGEPAD and EMLER including by accepting country visits, and implementing their recommendations as well as those from the Permanent Forum and the High Commissioner’s Agenda towards Transformative Change for Racial Justice and Equality.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation, and the re-mandating of the Special Rapporteur. The human rights situation in Russia has drastically deteriorated in the past year, and the Special Rapporteur needs more time to report on the general situation in the country and the Council to equally be able to scrutinize the situation.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on a Working Group on the rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. The resolution recognizes the contributions of peasants and other people working in rural areas in ensuring the right to adequate food and nutrition, a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as to conserving and improving biodiversity. It calls upon all States and all stakeholders to cooperate fully with the Working Group on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. The establishment of an interdisciplinary WG with balanced geographical representation will promote the effective and comprehensive implementation of the UNDROP and provide opportunities to share and promote good practices and lessons learned on the implementation of the UNDROP.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Afghanistan, which extends and strengthens the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. However, we are dismayed that the HRC once again failed to establish an independent investigative mechanism, despite compelling evidence for its need. This risks the entrenchment of impunity for crimes against humanity. This body must center rights holders and survivors, and heed the call of Afghan civil society, who have consistently asked for such a mechanism. We urge States to recognise the situation of women and girls in the country as amounting to gender apartheid, and to support the codification of this crime in the draft Articles on Crimes against Humanity.

We regret that the item 10 resolution on Yemen, again fails to respond to the urgent need for accountability for past and on-going violations and abuses in Yemen.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the enhancement of technical cooperation and capacity-building in the field of human rights and its focus on the Universal Periodic Review. The resolution contains a number of key references to the positive role civil society plays in technical assistance, and the possible role multi-stakeholder partnerships between States, UN agencies and civil society can play in supporting the implementation of international human rights obligations by UN Member States. The establishment of an online repository of technical cooperation and capacity-building activities could help civil society identify advocacy opportunities in regards to country-specific situations, in collaboration with UN agencies, as well as opportunities to share best practices and capitalize on lessons learned in regard to technical assistance.

We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia. In a context defined by systematic targeting and silencing of human rights defenders, critics and political opponents, the Special Rapporteur’s independent and objective assessment of the situation is more important than ever. However, we regret that the resolution once again failed to adequately reflect the reality of the situation and attempted to justify continuing restrictions on civil and political space on the basis of the country’s political and historical particularities as well as national legislation that contradict its international obligations.

We welcome the resolution on the rights of older persons and its important focus on the right of older persons to live free from violence, abuse, and neglect. Now, more needs to be done to ensure that older persons’ rights are protected in reality, including by establishing an international treaty on the rights of older persons.

We welcome the allocation of additional resources to the OHCHR in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, with the adoption of the resolution on ESCR and inequalities.

One year after the release of the OHCHR report finding possible crimes against humanity committed by China against Uyghurs and Muslim minorities, we deplore the sustained failure of this Council to engage in dialogue on the matter, let alone prevent the continuation of abuses. We regret the absence of a joint statement on China at the Council in 2023. The CESCR, the CEDAW, the CERD, the OHCHR, the ILO, as well as Special Procedures through three joint statements, nearly 30 press releases and over 100 letters to the government since 2018, have provided overwhelming evidence pointing to systematic and widespread human rights violations across the country. So long as the Council is not able to take principled action on the basis of objective criteria, other powerful perpetrators will feel empowered to continue committing atrocity crimes, relying on the Council’s silence. We reiterate our pressing call for all Council Members to support the adoption of a resolution establishing a UN mandate to monitor and report on the human rights situation in China.

Finally, we note the outcomes of the Human Rights Council elections. We welcome that Russia’s candidacy was defeated but regret the election of other members responsible for atrocity crimes, widespread civil society repression, and patterns of reprisals.

Signatories: International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), GIN SSOGIE NPC, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, FIAN International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA).

See also: https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/10/un-human-rights-council-adopts-5-new-resolutions-including-renewal-of-un-mandate-in-burundi/ 

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc54-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-human-rights-council/

https://rightlivelihood.org/news/54th-un-human-rights-council-we-shed-light-on-activist-repression-indigenous-peoples-plight-in-nicaragua-environmental-degradation/

Defense for Children – Palestine, winner of the 2023 Rafto Prize

September 21, 2023

Defense for Children International – Palestine is the 2023 recipient of the Rafto Prize, the Rafto Foundation for Human Rights announced today. 

For more on the Rafto Prize and its laureates, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/A5043D5E-68F5-43DF-B84D-C9EF21976B18

The Rafto Prize 2023 is awarded to Defence for Children International-Palestine (DCIP) for their persistent work to defend and promote the rights of children living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). For over 30 years, DCIP has investigated, documented and pursued accountability for grave human rights violations against children; held Israeli and Palestinian authorities accountable to universal human rights principles; and advocated at the international and national levels to advance access to justice and protection for children.

By awarding the Rafto Prize to DCIP, the Rafto Foundation wants to shine a spotlight on their work to promote and defend children’s rights,” said Jostein Hole Kobbeltvedt, executive director of Rafto Foundation. “With this award, we want to support DCIP by putting pressure on international organizations, including the UN, to investigate violations of children’s rights in the OPT and other armed conflicts around the world and demand that these be stopped.”

Our human rights documentation and evidence-based advocacy exposing Israeli forces’ grave violations against Palestinian children have made us a target of the Israeli government for years,” said Khaled Quzmar, General Director at DCIP. “But we will not back down. We are grateful for the Rafto Foundation’s recognition of the necessary human rights work my colleagues and I carry out to defend and protect Palestinian children.

DCIP is an independent, local Palestinian child rights organization dedicated to defending and promoting the rights of children living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Since 1991, DCIP has investigated, documented, and exposed grave human rights violations against children; provided legal services to Palestinian children in urgent need; held Israeli and Palestinian authorities accountable to universal human rights principles; and advocated at the international and national levels to advance access to justice and protection for children.

Israeli Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, designated DCIP and five other Palestinian human rights and civil society groups as “terrorist organizations” on October 19, 2021, pursuant to a 2016 Israeli law. The designation effectively criminalized the activities of these organizations and authorized Israeli authorities to close their offices, seize their assets, and arrest and jail their staff members.[see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/10/23/assault-by-israel-on-palestinian-human-rights-ngos/]

https://www.rafto.no/en/news/the-rafto-prize-2023-to

https://www.dci-palestine.org/dcip_awarded_international_prize_for_its_impact_on_palestinian_children_s_lives

Pro-Israel lobby in USA seems to control Harvard’s human rights centre

January 10, 2023

Kenneth Roth wrote in the Guardian of 10 January 2023 “I once ran Human Rights Watch. Harvard blocked my fellowship over Israel. I was told that my fellowship at the Kennedy School was vetoed over my and Human Rights Watch’s criticism of Israel”.

Kenneth Roth said Harvard’s move was a reflection of ‘how utterly afraid the Kennedy School has become of any criticism of Israel’.

. ..If any academic institution can afford to abide by principle, to refuse to compromise academic freedom under real or presumed donor pressure, it is Harvard, the world’s richest university. Yet the Kennedy School’s dean, Douglas Elmendorf, vetoed a human rights fellowship that had been offered to me because of my criticism of Israel. As best we can tell, donor reaction was his concern.

Soon after I announced my departure from Human Rights Watch [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/04/27/after-almost-30-years-kenneth-roth-will-leave-human-rights-watch/], the Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy reached out to me to discuss offering me a fellowship. ..

.. in anticipation of my stay at the school, I reached out to the dean to introduce myself. We had a pleasant half-hour conversation. The only hint of a problem came at the end. He asked me whether I had any enemies.

It was an odd question. I explained that of course I had enemies. Many of them. That is a hazard of the trade as a human rights defender.

I explained that the Chinese and Russian governments had personally sanctioned me – a badge of honor, in my view. I mentioned that a range of governments, including Rwanda’s and Saudi Arabia’s, hate me. But I had a hunch what he was driving at, so I also noted that the Israeli government undoubtedly detests me, too.

That turned out to be the kiss of death. Two weeks later, the Carr Center called me up to say sheepishly that Elmendorf had vetoed my fellowship. He told Professor Kathryn Sikkink, a highly respected human rights scholar affiliated with the Kennedy School, that the reason was my, and Human Rights Watch’s, criticism of Israel.

That is a shocking revelation. How can an institution that purports to address foreign policy – that even hosts a human rights policy center – avoid criticism of Israel. Elmendorf has not publicly defended his decision, so we can only surmise what happened. He is not known to have taken public positions on Israel’s human rights record, so it is hard to imagine that his personal views were the problem.

But as the Nation showed in its exposé about my case, several major donors to the Kennedy School are big supporters of Israel. Did Elmendorf consult with these donors or assume that they would object to my appointment? We don’t know. But that is the only plausible explanation that I have heard for his decision. The Kennedy School spokesperson has not denied it.

Some defenders of the Israeli government have claimed that Elmendorf’s rejection of my fellowship was because Human Rights Watch, or I, devote too much attention to Israel. The accusation of “bias” is rich coming from people who themselves never criticize Israel and, typically using neutral sounding organizational names, attack anyone who criticizes Israel.

Moreover, Israel is one of 100 countries whose human rights record Human Rights Watch regularly addresses. Israel is a tiny percentage of its work. And within the Israeli-Palestinian context, Human Rights Watch addresses not only Israeli repression but also abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In any event, it is doubtful that these critics would be satisfied if Human Rights Watch published slightly fewer reports on Israel, or if I issued less frequent tweets. They don’t want less criticism of Israel. They want no criticism of Israel.

The other argument that defenders of Israel have been advancing is that Human Rights Watch, and I, “demonize” Israel, or that we try to “evoke repulsion and disgust”. Usually this is a prelude to charging that we are “antisemitic”.

Human rights advocacy is premised on documenting and publicizing governmental misconduct to shame the government into stopping. That is what Human Rights Watch does to governments worldwide. To equate that with antisemitism is preposterous. And dangerous, because it cheapens the very serious problem of antisemitism by reducing it to criticism of Israel. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/02/04/amnesty-joins-debate-on-apartheid-versus-palestinians-but-reactions-debase-struggle-against-real-antisemitism/

The issue at Harvard is far more than my own academic fellowship. I recognized that, as an established figure in the human rights movement, I am in a privileged position. Being denied this fellowship will not significantly impede my future. But I worry about younger academics who are less known. If I can be canceled because of my criticism of Israel, will they risk taking the issue on?

The ultimate question here is about donor-driven censorship. Why should any academic institution allow the perception that donor preferences, whether expressed or assumed, can restrict academic inquiry and publication? Regardless of what happened in my case, wealthy Harvard should take the lead here.

To clarify its commitment to academic freedom, Harvard should announce that it will accept no contributions from donors who try to use their financial influence to censor academic work, and that no administrator will be permitted to censor academics because of presumed donor concerns. That would transform this deeply disappointing episode into something positive.

See also the reaction by Gerald L. Neuman: https://hrp.law.harvard.edu/staff-reflections/hks-kenneth-roth-and-the-message-to-human-rights-defenders/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/10/kenneth-roth-human-rights-watch-harvard-israel

Independent Commission of Inquiry hears Palestinian complaints

November 9, 2022
Members of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry attend a press briefing at the UN headquarters in New York

Members of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Israel, Navanethem Pillay, Miloon Kothari and Chris Sidoti attend a press briefing at the United Nations headquarters in New York, U.S., October 27, 2022. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz/File Photo

On 7 November 2022 Emma Farge reported for Reuters how a Palestinian human rights group told a U.N. panel on Monday 7 November it had been subject to threats and “mafia methods” during a campaign of harassment organised by Israel to silence groups documenting alleged Israeli rights violations.

The independent Commission of Inquiry, established by the Human Rights Council, the U.N. top human rights body, last year, plans five days of hearings which it says will be impartial and examine the allegations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel dismissed the process overseen by the panel as a sham while it declined comment on the specific allegations.

In the opening session, the commission heard from representatives of Palestinian organisations shuttered by Israel in August and designated as “terrorist” entities. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/10/23/assault-by-israel-on-palestinian-human-rights-ngos/

Shawan Jabarin, General Director of human rights group Al-Haq, denied the terrorism charge and called the closure an “arbitrary decision“, saying Israeli security forces had used “mafia methods” against it in a years-long harassment campaign. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2011/11/30/israel-refuses-to-let-hrd-shawan-jabarin-travel-to-receive-award-in-denmark/

They used all means, I can say. They used financial means; they used a smear campaign; they used threats,” he said, saying his office was sealed with a metal door on Aug. 18.

Asked to detail the threats mentioned to the panel, Jabarin told Reuters after the hearing that he had received a phone call from somebody he identified as being from “Shabak”, or the Israel Security Agency, two days after the raid. They threatened him with detention, interrogation or “other means” if he continued his work, he added.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-hearings-probing-alleged-israeli-rights-abuses-open-geneva-2022-11-07/

New program director of Human Rights Watch generates interest

May 7, 2022

In 1 May 2022 the Times of Israel reported that “Sari Bashi, a longtime activist with the organization who is married to a Palestinian, to head up programming at HRW amid search for successor to departing director Kenneth Roth” {see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/04/27/after-almost-30-years-kenneth-roth-will-leave-human-rights-watch/]

I’m thrilled, honored, humbled and grateful to announce that next month, I will begin my appointment as @hrw’s new Program Director, supervising our research and investigations as we reorient ourselves to strengthen the broader human rights ecosystem and meet today’s challenges,” Bashi tweeted on Friday.

In the past, Bashi, a lawyer by training, co-founded and directed Gisha, an organization that pushes for freedom of movement for Palestinians in Gaza. From 2015 to 2018 she served as the director of Israel-Palestine for HRW, and returned to the organization last year as a special adviser.

A year ago, HRW issued a sweeping 213-page report accusing Israel of apartheid. Israel rejected the report, calling its “fictional claims… both preposterous and false,” and accusing HRW of having “a long-standing anti-Israel agenda.” [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/05/10/israeli-government-sponsored-app-goes-after-hrw-for-apartheid-categorisation/]

HRW’s Israel and Palestine director, Omar Shakir, was expelled by Israel in 2019 over allegations that he supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks to isolate Israel over its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians. [See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/11/06/human-rights-watch-omar-shakir-loses-his-appeal-in-israeli-supreme-court/]

In recent years, Bashi, a US native, has been open about her relationship with a Palestinian man originally from Gaza, and the struggles they have faced to live in the same place. They lived together for a few years in the United States as well as in South Africa, and have based their lives in Ramallah, she said, since they are unable to live together in Israel.

The reaction was quick in coming. On 2 May Just the News stated: “A powerful nongovernmental organization with a massive budget and an alleged ideological bias against Israel will continue targeting the Jewish state after it completes a major leadership change now underway, according to experts and lawmakers who spoke to Just the News.” “Unfortunately, the extremely biased attitude toward Israel which Kenneth Roth represented in Human Rights Watch will, most probably, be cemented with the appointment of Sari Bashi,” said Sarah Stern, president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a think tank. “Throughout her career, Ms. Bashi has constantly demonstrated her lack of objectivity and overwhelming animus towards the state of Israel.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-israeli-to-become-new-programs-director-of-human-rights-watch/

https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/experts-human-rights-watch-continue-targeting-israel-after-leadership

Results 49th session Human Rights Council as seen by NGOs

April 15, 2022

13 organisations – including the ISHR – have shared reflections on the key outcomes of the 49th session of the UN Human Rights Council, as well as the missed opportunities to address key issues and situations. . Full written version below [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/02/21/guide-to-49th-session-of-human-rights-council-with-human-rights-defenders-focus/:

We stand in solidarity with human rights defenders in Ukraine, as well as those in Russia and around the world striving for peace, justice and accountability.

We welcome the Council’s swift response to the devastating human rights consequences of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, setting up a strong accountability mechanism. The war in Ukraine represents the latest in a growing regional human rights crisis and the action taken by the Council to establish this accountability mechanism is an important step. 

Since the Council took action in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian human rights defenders have documented evidence of violations that may amount to war crimes, including indiscriminate attacks, forced deportation of Ukrainians to Russia, abductions and disappearances of political activists and human rights defenders, and the intentional targeting of local political figures, journalists, civilians, and civilian infrastructure. While we welcome the Council’s initial response, it is imperative that the Council remain diligent and responsive to situational needs, including a potential special session prior to HRC50 should the situation in Ukraine continue to deteriorate.

Every human rights situation must be dealt with on its merits, with Council members ensuring a principled and consistent application of international law and standards, including in all situations of occupation. It is imperative that the Council uses all available tools to ensure the fulfilment of the inalienable right to self-determination of the Palestinian people as a whole struggling against Israel’s apartheid,  and to act with urgency to support Palestinian civil society in a context of mounting repression.

We recall the mounting recognition of Israel’s imposition of an apartheid regime over the Palestinian people, including by the UN Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk, but also prior to his historic report, in a joint statement by 47 UN Special Procedures which stated that “above all, the Israeli occupation has meant the denial of the right of Palestinian self-determination.” In a joint statement at this session,  90 organisations reiterated that “Double standards on this matter, including those propagated by Europe and the United States, severely undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of international human rights and humanitarian legal standards. For 73 years, the international community has enabled Israeli impunity and failed to hold Israeli perpetrators accountable for serious crimes against Palestinians.  Accountability is long overdue.”

This Council must also urgently act to dismantle systemic racism in border control and migration governance and play its role in upholding all human rights for all at international borders, including the right to seek asylum. All human beings crossing European borders from Ukraine are fleeing the same dangers. We deplore the discrimination and violence against Africans and other racialized groups fleeing Ukraine, as well as the different approach taken towards refugees fleeing other conflicts.

We welcome the Council’s decision to extend the mandate of the OHCHR Examination on Belarus. We remind the Council that the original Examination did not start its work for a number of months which resulted in delays in documenting and analysing evidence of human rights violations committed in the context of Belarus’s 2020 presidential elections. We are concerned by reports that the Examination will be moved from Geneva to Vienna and delays which could result from such action. We encourage the Council to engage with OHCHR to ensure that the Examination rolls over without delay.

We welcome attention paid to the issue of transitional justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the context of the interactive dialogue at this session, and stress that any meaningful transitional justice process must include a judicial mechanism with a strong international component to hold perpetrators to account.

While we welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur on Iran, we urge the Council to revisit its business as usual approach to the human rights situation in Iran. We regret that the resolution fails to contain any substance on the situation of human rights in the country, a situation that is unique for country resolutions under item 4. As noted by the Special Rapporteur in his report to this Council, “institutional impunity and the absence of a system for accountability for violations of human rights permeate the political and legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” We furthermore urge the Council to answer the Special Rapporteur’s appeal for “the international community to call for accountability with respect to long-standing emblematic events that have been met with persistent impunity”.

It is clear from its interim report to this Council that the Fact-finding Mission for Libya must be renewed in June, ideally for a period of two years.  Much more work needs to be done to promote the institutions necessary for accountability in the country. 

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Myanmar – by consensus – maintaining enhanced monitoring and reporting on the ongoing crisis, and with calls for suspension of arms transfers to Myanmar as a necessary step towards preventing further violations and abuses of human rights.

We celebrate the establishment of a Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, as the repression intensifies, and the government does not show any willingness to cooperate with the UN. The Group’s mandate to investigate human rights violations since April 2018, including root causes and intersectional forms of discrimination, identify perpetrators, and preserve evidence, will pave the way for future accountability processes, putting victims at the heart of the Council’s response.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on human rights defenders and we stress that recognizing and protecting human rights defenders involves not only their holistic and security protection but also recognition of the important work they do in conflict and post-conflict situations. We also welcome the reference of the impact of arms transfers in this resolution, but regret a more substantive reference could not be made in the operational paragraphs. We also regret that child human rights defenders have not been included in the resolution despite the strong request from many States.

We welcome the leadership of Uruguay, on behalf of GRULAC, and the EU on the resolution on the rights of the child and family reunification in the context of migration and armed conflict, ensuring a strong focus on children as rights holders, prevention of family separation and the establishment of effective and accessible family reunification procedures. We are concerned once again, by the attempt to weaken the text on child participation through amendments. Finally, we regret that the resolution does not include a clear reference to the existing standards on prohibition of child immigration detention, and that the important recognition, especially in the context of the resolution, that various forms of family exist was not retained in the text. 

We welcome the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, although we regret that the resolution does not clearly stress the need for additional resources to the mandate due to its necessary focus on activities of UN on counter-terrorism in New York. We recognise the important analysis on states of emergency that was very relevant during the pandemic.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on disinformation. The resolution reaffirms the central role of the right to freedom of expression in countering disinformation and stresses that censorship cannot be justified to counter disinformation, including through Internet shutdowns or vague and broad laws criminalising disinformation.  It also draws attention to the role of algorithms and ranking systems in amplifying disinformation. We urge States to follow the approach of the resolution and counter disinformation through holistic measures, including by ensuring a free, independent, plural and diverse media, protecting the safety of journalists, and promoting access to information held by public bodies.

Whilst underlining the importance of protecting the independence of the OHCHR and ensuring there is no state interference in its work, we welcome the resolution on promoting and protecting economic, social and cultural rights within the context of addressing inequalities in the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, its emphasis on austerity measures and policies imposed by International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and its impact on economic, social and cultural right. We regret the language calling out IFIs was not stronger and in this regard encourage the workshop that will be convened by the High Commissioner to address the specific impacts of austerity measures imposed by IFIs on human rights specifically on recovery from COVID 19 Pandemic. 

We welcome reports 49/68 on […] prevention and technical assistance and capacity-building, and 49/88 on the contribution of […] all human rights […] to achieving the purposes and upholding the principles of the UN Charter – they emphasized how the Council and the broader human rights community can work more effectively and coherently across all UN pillars to sustain peace – including through systematically integrating human rights in UN common analysis and programming, and increasing synergies between UN pillars; and ensuring human rights are at the centre of a new social contract.

We regret that the Council failed to respond to several human rights situations.

In the context of new heights of repression threatening the survival of independent civil society in Algeria, we welcome the High Commissioner’s call on the Government of Algeria to take all necessary steps to guarantee its people’s rights to freedom of speech, association and peaceful assembly, to which we add the right to freedom of religion or belief. Special Procedures have repeatedly warned about increasing crackdown on religious minorities, in the context of a sustained crackdown on civil and political freedoms.

We note the High Commissioner’s announced visit to China, while expressing concerns at the lack of transparency over agreed terms for unfettered access. We recall precedents that cast shadow over the possibility that the Chinese authorities indeed allow genuine unrestricted access and inquiry, across the country. We deplore her Office’s lack of coherence in responding to serious human rights violations in China, as this Council still awaits a long-promised report on grave violations in Xinjiang, the Uyghur region, with no further indication on its protracted release.

We express deep disappointment in a lack of follow up by States to the joint statement condemning widespread violations in Egypt delivered last March.   The Egyptian human rights movement and independent rights NGOs continue to face a real and imminent threats to their existence.  The authorities continue to misuse counterterrorism laws to arbitrarily detain thousands, including hundreds of human rights defenders, activists, political opponents and journalists, while systematically resorting to enforced disappearances and torture. Judges continue to sentence hundreds of defendants following their convictions as a result of unfair criminal trials, including to death, amid an alarming spike in executions since late 2020.  Given the failure of the Egyptian authorities to meaningfully address the on-going human rights crisis and tackle impunity for crimes under international law and other serious human rights violations, we strongly urge follow up action at this Council.  The price of silence is too high.

It is unfortunate that the Council did not take steps to respond to the substantial and growing attacks on human rights on the territory of the Russian Federation. Since Russia launched its war against Ukraine, the authorities have further clamped down on the freedoms of assembly, association, and expression and made legitimate human rights work increasingly difficult. Peaceful protest is effectively forbidden. Independent media are forbidden from printing facts and required to solely report government narratives. Two decades of repression against independent civil society, journalists, and human rights defenders laid the groundwork for the authorities to be able to launch an unprovoked attack against Ukraine and the Council has a responsibility to respond accordingly. We demand that the Council establish a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Russia at its soonest opportunity.

Finally, we call on the UN General Assembly to suspend Russia’s rights of membership of the Council for committing widespread, gross and systematic human rights violations, some amounting to war crimes.

Signatories: International Service for Human Rights, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Human Rights House Foundation, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, International Commission of Jurists, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI),  Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling, Gulf Centre for Human Rights, child rights connect, Habitat International Coalition, FIDH.

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc49-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-human-rights-council/