The "Trump Effect" and the Palestinian Authority
On April 27th, 2017, the Palestinian Authority announced that it would no longer be paying Israel to supply electricity to the Gaza strip. President Mahmoud Abbas’ stated rationale for this drastic decision was to increase pressure on Hamas by withholding finances and shake the terrorist group’s ten-year reign. The Gaza strip already only had six hours of electricity per day, but with this new lack of funding will be reduced to a mere 2-4 hours. This aggressive strategy is a result of years of failed attempts between the Palestinian Authority’s governing faction, Fatah, and Hamas to reconcile. But occurring only one week before his first face-to-face meeting with US president Donald Trump, the timing of Abbas’ decision calls into question the true purpose behind his actions.
Being dubbed the “Trump effect” by academics, the new US president’s rhetoric on cracking down on global terrorism and de-emphasis on human rights has influenced decisions of middle Eastern leaders. For Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, cutting off funding for electricity in Gaza one week before his meeting with Trump was a strategic decision to gain the favor of the new United States president. Trump is eager to restart the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians, and with his extremely pro-Israel sympathies and anti-Muslim rhetoric, the United States will likely side with the Israelis at the negotiating table. Abbas, aware of Trump’s “Israel bias” as well as claims by Netanyahu that there is no united voice of the Palestinian people to negotiate with or true partner for peace, needed to prove that he is a legitimate partner and committed to aiding the war on terror.
Abbas has been formulating a strategy to best approach Donald Trump since November. Shortly after the election, Abbas reportedly assembled a committee of experts on US policy and government to advise and aid him on the audacious and unpredictable president. With Trump announcing his intent to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Abbas likely knew that were the peace process to restart between the Palestinians and Israelis, he could not count on the Trump administration to act as an unbiased mediator. In order to be considered a legitimate and equal partner in negotiations, the Palestinian Authority needed more than just idealistic rhetoric to gain favor with Donald Trump. Abbas had to take action tailored specifically to the policy goals of the new president.
Cracking down on global terrorism is a foremost prerogative of the Trump administration. Their “highest priority” is to to gain “peace through strength” by “defeating radical Islamic terror” by working with “international partners to cut off funding for terrorist groups.” As both the United States and the Israel condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, Abbas cutting off funding for the Gaza strip follows directly from the Trump policy and works in accord with the outline set by the administration. Two weeks before his meeting with Trump, Abbas stated to the Arab Gulf States that he was “tired of funding the Hamas government in Gaza.” One week later, he put his words into action. The Palestinian Authority is attempting to exhibit to the Trump administration that they can be seen as a committed ally in the war on terror. By taking action against Hamas and further separating themselves from the radical organization, they are creating a foundation with the United States and Israel to combat a mutual enemy. This commonality may serve to gain them legitimacy and favor in the eyes of the Trump administration that will be helpful in future negotiations.
Not only did Abbas need to present the Palestinian Authority to Trump as committed to peace and eradicating terrorism, he needed to present a unified Palestinian front to the United States. Since the split between Fatah, the governing party of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza in 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has claimed that peace negotiations with the Palestinians are futile because there is no united voice of their people. Abbas needs to regain control and power over Gaza in order to frustrate attempts by Hamas to carry out actions that may unravel any progress. He hopes that pressuring Hamas by worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza will loosen the organization’s hold on the territory and acquiesce back to the PA. With both territories back under his jurisdiction, Abbas can invalidate Israeli claims that there is no unified representative of the Palestinian people. Trump has also stated that “there cannot be lasting peace unless Palestinian leaders speak in a unified voice…against violence and hate.” Israel believes that “Abbas is trying to force Hamas into a move that would – a least symbolically – demonstrate Palestinian unity” in preparation for meeting with the United States. After yet another failure to create a unity government between Fatah and Hamas by the middle of April, Abbas consequently had to look for other ways to regain control over the Gaza strip to present a united front.
The different stances on human rights between Barak Obama and Donald Trump were another factor shaping the decision of Abbas to cut off electricity funding to Gaza. Obama’s foreign policy program Countering Violence Extremism emphasized the importance of recognizing human rights violations as the drivers of terrorism. In a 2011 speech on “Remarks by the President on the Middle East and Africa,” Barak Obama stated that support for human rights was not a secondary interest but a “top priority” in the war on terror. This policy marked his years in office with an “awkward balance” between condemning human rights violations in states such as Saudi Arabia, but allying with these nations to fight against terrorist organizations. Cutting off funding for electricity in Gaza would have likely been condemned by the Obama administration as a human rights violation. Abbas then would not have utilized such a strategy as it would not have been looked on favorably by the previous president. The PA’s actions to pressure Hamas would have likely been exceedingly different under the Obama administration.
Trump, however, is not so much concerned with the human rights consequences of policies that progress the war on terror. Trump stated in an interview that “first we have to confront and eradicate terrorism” and that the “way you address human rights issues… is to improve conditions in the region…human rights would improve as security and stability do.” Trump has been criticized for this stance by Democrats who argue that he is de-emphasizing human rights in favor of focusing solely on fighting terrorism. This is evident in his failure to discuss Saudi Arabia’s notorious human rights violations during his visit to the country. He told leaders that he wasn’t there to “lecture them” but instead to only discuss the mutual goal of fighting global terrorist groups such as ISIS and Hamas. Where the Palestinian Authority’s actions would have been condemned by the Obama Administration due to escalating the human rights crises in Gaza, the Trump administration would instead view this as proof that Abbas is committed to fighting against Hamas and gain legitimacy as peace partners.
The success of Abbas’ tactical decision comes at the cusp of Trump’s remarks at a press conference after the two leaders’ meeting. Trump stated that “President Abbas has spoken out against…terrorist groups, and we must continue to build our partnership with the Palestinian security forces to counter and defeat terrorism.” Abbas’ proximate actions against Hamas worked in his favor, as the Trump administration recognized his work against terrorism. Looking at the implications of Trump’s foreign policy on decisions of the Palestinian Authority is necessary to predicting as well as understanding the motivation behind future actions of President Mahmoud Abbas. With Trump committed to restarting the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Abbas needs to show the new administration the Palestinians are ready and wanting for peace. By carrying out action in accord with Trump’s harsh on terrorism policy, the PA hopes to butter up the new president. In the press conference after their meeting, Abbas regaled to Trump and the world that “we are endeavoring to bring about security, free and peace…we believe that we can be…true partner, to you to bring about a historic peace treaty.” With his actions against Hamas, Abbas now has substance to back up his words. Abbas will likely continue to cater his actions to appease Trump in the immediate future in preparation for the renewal of the peace process.
Deflection and Evasion: Human Rights in the Gulf
On March 15, 2006, the United Nations General Assembly established the United Nations Human Rights Council (hereafter UNHRC). This would replace the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which had been heavily criticized for admitting to its membership the repressive regimes of countries such as China, Zimbabwe, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
So how far has the Council progressed? Surely after the upheaval and rebranding of an institution that had stood since 1946, a new wave of human rights advocacy and legitimacy would sweep the 193-member state organization.
Along with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the trusted old guard Saudi Arabia continues to enjoy a seat at the table.
At a time where the US is reportedly considering withdrawing its membership of the UNHRC due to its criticism of Israel, it behooves one to consider how Israel’s human rights record compares to that of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE.
In regard to civil and political rights, otherwise termed as ‘the first wave' or 'first generation' of human rights, Israel boasts a significantly better record than that of its Gulf state counterparts. It does not practice the death penalty, with the last execution being that of Adolf Eichmann – the notorious Nazi convicted of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity – in 1962. It is home to a diverse group of competing political parties, ranging from religious Zionist parties such as the Jewish Home Party to explicitly anti-Zionist parties such as Balad.
By contrast, due to the varying degrees to which their legal systems incorporate Sharia Law, these three Gulf nations all retain the practice of the death penalty for crimes as serious as murder to those as minor and dubious as apostasy, adultery and sodomy (homosexuality). Between January 1 2016 and July 27 2016, Saudi Arabia executed 108 people. In 2016, Freedom House rated the Kingdom’s political rights a score of 3/40 and their civil liberties a score of 7/60. Saudi citizens face criminal prosecution for political dissent, and the ban on political parties has virtually eliminated any opposition to the monarchy’s decrees. The most notable case is that of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to a flogging of 1000 lashes in 2014 for ‘insulting Islam’.
LGBT rights have rightly emerged as a preeminent concern for human rights activists. The Israeli legal system maintains strong protections for the rights of LGBT people. Consensual same-sex acts have been de facto legal since 1963 and formally legal since 1988. The concept of ‘sodomy’ has no legal validity or relevance within Israeli legal system. LGBT people are protected under the law from discrimination within society and the military, with violent crimes motivated by sexual orientation considered hate crimes and requiring double the punishment of regular violent crimes. Furthermore, same-sex couples are afforded extensive adoption rights.
The Gulf nations paint a very different picture of livability for LGBT people. Article 177 of the Dubai Penal Code states that consensual sodomy is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Along with the near-identical Qatari policy, these procedures almost seem lenient when compared to that of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom’s wahhabist ultra-conservatism views homosexuality as the ultimate deviancy, as well as what are perceived to be the related issues of transgender citizens and cross-dressing. The legal punishments for homosexual sex in Saudi Arabia include fines, prison sentences, floggings, chemical castration, torture and execution – often by beheading.
The Israeli-Gulf divide also occurs along the lines of women’s rights. Israel ranks 18th in the world in terms of gender equality according to the United Nations Development Program. Women are protected from discrimination under the law and have enjoyed prominent positions within Israeli society such as Prime Minister, President of the Supreme Court, Chairperson of the Reserve Bank and Major General. The Knesset’s Committee on the Status of Women has as its stated objectives: the prevention of discrimination, combatting violence against women, and promoting equality in politics, lifecycle events and education.
Conversely, women’s rights in Saudi Arabia are abysmal by international standards. The country ranked 134th globally in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report of 2015. Saudi law requires all women to have a male guardian in public and as such are not permitted to shop, conduct business or drive without a male companion. Saudi authorities also mandate draconian laws regarding the modesty of women’s clothing. Failure to comply with these laws can incur harassment from the Mutaween (religious police). Polygamy remains legal as does the marrying of child brides. In court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women. Domestic violence is a common occurrence, as is the denial of property and employment rights to women.
Although Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state, it also guarantees freedom of religion to all its citizens. Christian, Muslim and Baha’i communities have jurisdiction over their own adherents in matters of marriage, divorce and burial. Synagogues, mosques, churches and khalwats (Druze prayer houses) can operate without fear of government intrusion or closure. Importantly, Israeli law does not prohibit leaving a religious group, otherwise known as ‘apostasy’.
In Qatar, the idea of religious freedom is at best illusory for its Muslim population. Under Articles 245-260 of the Qatari Law 11 of 2004, blasphemy and other insults or challenges to the doctrines of Islam are punishable by prison sentences, whilst the offence of apostasy is punishable by the death penalty. Apostasy is similarly punished in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia retains the more archaic beliefs of the Gulf trio, by prosecuting people for sorcery and witchcraft. It also tasks the Mutaween with enforcing Sharia law throughout the country. This involves reporting unrelated males and females who socialize, enforcing strict Islamic dress codes, enforcing Muslim dietary requirements, prohibiting people from proselytizing other religions and banning consumer products deemed to be un-Islamic.
As the nations of the world vote on 15 new members to the UNHRC at the convening of the General Assembly in September, two concerns should be at the forefront of their minds. Firstly, human rights are important and adherence to their norms requires constant introspection and critical self-examination. Their inalienability is an equalizer for people across the globe, be they rich or poor, black or white. They serve to allow people, among other things, the freedom to speak their mind and guard the dignity and liberty to which they are naturally entitled. Secondly, having a UNHRC characterized by hypocrisy ultimately undermines their principled mandate. Allowing repressive regimes like Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia to deflect their horrendous records onto Israel is an exercise in evasion. Israel is an imperfect democracy; elevated by morality yet burdened with deficiencies. Nonetheless, we should set the bar higher than floggings, chemical castrations and beheadings.
Hamas Terrorizes The People of Gaza
Learn more about how Hamas abuses the rights and freedoms of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Download
Lone Soldiers
Learn more about the Lone Soldiers in the IDF, those with no family in Israel to support him or her, a new immigrant, a volunteer from abroad, an orphan or an individual from an unsafe home.
Downloads
The Qatar Crisis: A Human Rights Issue Too
The recent decision by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain to sever diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar has been dominantly viewed through the lens of its political and security implications alongside Qatar’s alleged support for terrorist organizations. However, there are often-overlooked aspects of the commonly-called blockade that are worthy of a greater amount of consideration: human rights and international law. While there are other human rights challenges in Qatar, this article seeks to examine the effects of the recent crisis.
One component of the break in diplomatic ties between these GCC nations was a demand by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain for Qatari citizens to depart their countries within two weeks or face unspecified consequences. Similarly, these governments urged their citizens residing in Qatar to return home by this same deadline or potentially risk losing citizenship. Such a move may not sound extremely disruptive on face, but the action is nowhere near benign.
Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain – experience an extremely high level of economic and social integration with one another. In the 2001 Economic Agreement Between the GCC States, these nations made a binding commitment for GCC citizens to “be accorded, in any Member States, the same treatment accorded to its own citizens, without differentiation or discrimination, in all economic activities.” This meant that citizens of any GCC country had equal rights to purchase property, obtain healthcare, insurance, education, and other social services in any Gulf country they chose to reside in. In addition, citizens of Gulf states experienced freedom of movement – oft-considered a basic human right – to allow them to travel without restriction among the Gulf states.
As a result of this close integration, many individuals chose to pursue their education, find jobs, or start businesses in countries other than the one in which they held citizenship. It was customary to travel between the states regularly, especially given the frequency of flights between the nations. But, after the onset of the recent crisis, both Qataris in the condemning nations and citizens of those three countries in Qatar faced interruptions of their basic lifestyle choices. The high level of interdependence between these GCC states underscores the gravity of the recent actions taken, especially in the face of GCC agreements that ensure equal treatment to all GCC-nation citizens. The individuals affected by these measures number at least 13,000, according to the Qatar National Human Rights Committee.
These individuals could either depart from their current country of residence without any prospect of returning – leaving behind the life they made and likely losing their job – or they could stay, running the risk of losing citizenship in their native country. Neither option sounds particularly enticing, especially once various complications are considered. Students in university could be forced to leave prior to finishing exams. Patients undergoing medical treatment could have to choose whether to proceed with treatment or face the consequences of noncompliance with the mandates.
For mixed-nationality families, these challenges are particularly acute. Children with different citizenships than one of their parents could face separation, regardless of the age of the child. For families impacted by divorce or death of a parent, there could be even more complications. Although the blockade countries claim that special attention would be paid to such cases, little materialization of any altered standards has appeared.
Not only were citizens of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE required to return to their native countries, but there were also new standards instituted regarding “sympathizing” with Qatar. If any individual publicly makes a statement sympathy towards Qatar, whether it be on social media or in public, they could be liable for heavy fines or even imprisonment. In the UAE, for example, sympathizing with Qatar could result in imprisonment for up to 15 years or a fine of up to 500,000 dirhams.
In total, the blockade measures violate multiple international agreements, whether widely accepted standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or more specific agreements that apply to the countries involved, like the Arab Charter on Human Rights. The violations are similar across the various treaties; however, problems regarding enforcement arise given that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain are not parties to many of the basic UN human rights treaties. The fact that these nations have not ratified such treaties itself should not be ignored, but for the time being, it is more relevant to focus on the agreements that these nations are signatories to, such as the Arab Charter on Human Rights and the GCC Human Rights Declaration. Although currently lacking an effective enforcement mechanism like an Arab Court of Human Rights, the standards set forth in the Arab Charter on Human Rights articulate binding norms that Arab nations agreed to. Similarly, the GCC Human Rights Declaration lists a set of goals that GCC countries want to aspire to regarding human rights. At the bottom of the page is an organized list of the articles of each agreement that the current actions violate.
Not only do the actions directly implicate international standards, but there are also consequences for individuals’ daily lives that simply result from the break in diplomatic and economic connections between the nations. Trade ties between the GCC countries have been a primary factor in the success of their respective economies. As such, the break in economic associations has radically altered the way that Qatar supplies its population with necessary economic goods and services. Food imports have been shifted – away from Saudi Arabia – towards Turkey and Iran. Due to the quick switch in economic partners, a complete replacement of all the goods that used to flow in from Saudi Arabia has not been possible. As such, greater food imports from places like Turkey primarily supply large supermarkets in Doha, putting strain on smaller grocery stores. Deficits of products, combined with high prices, will challenge individuals in Qatar, especially low-income families and migrant workers. In the short-term, access to food will continue to be limited, hampering individuals’ abilities to fulfill basic needs. To better prevent such shortages and broader economic losses long-term, Qatar is likely to further increase economic cooperation with Iran and Turkey, but it is precisely this move that may deepen the extent of the crisis.
The blockade countries presented Qatar a list of demands that, when fulfilled, would result in reinstated cooperation. Prominently featured are pleas to “curb diplomatic ties with Iran” and to “immediately terminate the Turkish military presence currently in Qatar and end any joint military cooperation with Turkey inside of Qatar.” The blockade countries threaten that if the demands are not complied with by July 3, then the list of demands will no longer be valid. Meanwhile, Qatar – looking to fill the cooperative vacuum left behind by the withdrawal of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain – finds increasing incentives to work with Iran and Turkey. As a result, compromising on the demands made by the blockade countries will only prove to be more difficult as the crisis continues.
The risks of the crisis continuing for an extended period of are manifold. Qatar has sufficient financial resources and flexibility not to immediately cave into all of the demands, but it cannot last forever without the cooperation of the blockade countries. Already hit with losses recently due to low energy prices – impacting the profitability of its main industry, LNG – Qatar finds itself in a less prosperous position. Yet, the perceived importance of the issues at stake for both sides ensure that no country will easily succumb. As the crisis continues, families will continue to be divided and economies on both sides will continue to be hard hit, impacting the basic lives of individuals across these nations.
The human rights questions posed by the blockade are of extreme importance, and should not be ignored. Although Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE claim to be taking these actions to criticize Qatar’s support for terrorist organizations like Hamas, ending Qatar’s support for Hamas will not necessarily result in a more peaceful outcome. According to Haim Malka of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), weakened financing streams from Qatar could lead to fragmentation of Hamas, potentially opening the door to infighting and increased violence from terrorist groups vying for power in Gaza. Regardless of the eventual outcome on terrorist organizations, human rights are inalienable, a relevant consideration when making any diplomatic decision. Before the crisis continues for an extended period of time, it is essential for the human rights considerations to be dealt with.
International Agreement Violations:
Freedom of Belief and Expression
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 3 - “Each State party to the present Charter undertakes to ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms set forth herein, without distinction on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religious belief, opinion, thought, national or social origin, wealth, birth or physical or mental disability.”
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 32 – “The present Charter guarantees the right to information and to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium, regardless of geographical boundaries.”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 9 – “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and exercising such freedom is guaranteed insofar as it accords with Islamic Sharia law, public order and the regulations (laws) regulating this area.”
Freedom of Movement
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 26 – “ 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State party shall, within that territory, have the right to freedom of movement and to freely choose his residence in any part of that territory in conformity with the laws in force. 2. No State party may expel a person who does not hold its nationality but is lawfully in its territory, other than in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and after that person has been allowed to submit a petition to the competent authority, unless compelling reasons of national security preclude it. Collective expulsion is prohibited under all circumstances.”
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 27 – “ 1. No one may be arbitrarily or unlawfully prevented from leaving any country, including his own, nor prohibited from residing, or compelled to reside, in any part of that country. 2. No one may be exiled from his country or prohibited from returning thereto.”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 10 – “Freedom of movement, residence and departure is a right of every human being according to the regulations (law)”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 11 – “No one shall be deported from his country or prevented from entering it”
Protection of the Family
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 33 – “2. The State and society shall ensure the protection of the family, the strengthening of family ties, the protection of its members and the prohibition of all forms of violence or abuse in the relations among its members, and particularly against women and children. They shall also ensure the necessary protection and care for mothers, children, older persons and persons with special needs and shall provide adolescents and young persons with the best opportunities for physical and mental development. 3. The States parties shall take all necessary legislative, administrative and judicial measures to guarantee the protection, survival, development and well-being of the child in an atmosphere of freedom and dignity and shall ensure, in all cases, that the child's best interests are the basic criterion for all measures taken in his regard, whether the child is at risk of delinquency or is a juvenile offender.”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 14 – “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, originally composed of a man and a woman, governed by religion, morals and patriotism; its entity and bonds are maintained and reinforced by religion. Motherhood, childhood and members of the family are protected by religion as well as the State and society against all forms of abuse and domestic violence.”
Mixed Signals in Turkey on Human Freedoms
This infographics exposes the mixes signals in regards of human rights coming from Turkey's leaders. The #LetsBeHonest Campaign seeks to expose the duplicitous claims spoken by Arab leaders to the West and exposes their true intentions toward peace.
Download
UNRWA vs. UNHCR
This fact sheet compares the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)