Peticion de Apoyo a 7 de octubre
POR LA MEMORIA DEL 7 DE OCTUBRE, CONTRA EL ODIO Y EL TERRORISMO
Petición dirigida al Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, António Guterres. A tres años de los ataques terroristas del 7 de octubre de 2023 perpetrados por Hamas, alzamos nuestra voz para preservar la memoria y la dignidad de las víctimas y sobrevivientes, enfrentar el antisemitismo y rechazar toda forma de negación, banalización o justificación de las atrocidades cometidas aquel día.
PETICIÓN POR LA MEMORIA DEL 7 DE OCTUBRE, CONTRA EL ODIO Y EL TERRORISMO
Petición al Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, António Guterres
Nosotros, miembros de comunidades latinoamericanas unidos por el compromiso de preservar la memoria y la dignidad de las víctimas y sobrevivientes de los ataques del 7 de octubre de 2023, elevamos esta petición al Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas.
Ese fatídico 7 de octubre, Hamas y otros grupos terroristas palestinos llevaron a cabo un brutal ataque contra Israel. Civiles inocentes fueron asesinados, torturados y víctimas de actos de violencia sexual. Entre las víctimas había mujeres, niños, bebés y adultos mayores. Ese mismo día, 251 personas fueron secuestradas y llevadas como rehenes a Gaza. Muchos permanecieron allí durante más de dos años. Solo después de 843 días fue recuperado y devuelto a Israel el último rehén que permanecía en Gaza. Muchos de los secuestrados, lamentablemente, no regresaron con vida.
Tres años después, frente a la persistencia del antisemitismo y de narrativas que niegan, banalizan o buscan justificar la violencia cometida por Hamas, creemos que recordar no es suficiente. La memoria exige también responsabilidad y acción.
Por ello, solicitamos al Secretario General que, antes de concluir su mandato:
- condene de manera inequívoca el terrorismo de Hamas y la toma de rehenes, sin justificaciones ni relativizaciones;
- garantice que, en el marco de las Naciones Unidas, se otorguen de manera efectiva la prioridad, los espacios, la atención y los recursos necesarios para combatir el antisemitismo, la negación y banalización de los ataques del 7 de octubre y toda forma de incitación al odio contra el pueblo judío;
- vele para que los órganos y mecanismos de las Naciones Unidas actúen conforme a los principios de imparcialidad, universalidad y no selectividad, y aseguren que sus espacios no sean utilizados para legitimar discursos de odio, incitación o deshumanización dirigidos contra el Estado de Israel;
- brinde los espacios institucionales y simbólicos correspondientes para preservar y amplificar las voces de las víctimas y sobrevivientes del 7 de octubre, de modo que sus historias formen parte de la memoria colectiva internacional.
Al firmar esta petición, reafirmamos nuestro compromiso con la memoria de quienes fueron asesinados, con quienes sobrevivieron y continúan recuperándose de heridas visibles e invisibles, y con las familias que cargan hasta hoy con las consecuencias del 7 de octubre.
Reafirmamos también nuestro compromiso con el derecho del Estado de Israel a existir, con el derecho del pueblo judío a vivir con seguridad y autodeterminación, y con el derecho de todas las personas de la región a vivir en paz, seguridad y dignidad.
Alzamos nuestra voz por quienes ya no pueden hacerlo.
Recordar es también actuar.
Una iniciativa de
PETICIÓN POR LA MEMORIA DEL 7 DE OCTUBRE, CONTRA EL ODIO Y EL TERRORISMO
Justice Before Diplomacy - Indict the IRGC
Don't Let the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) Walk Free
The US and Iran are moving toward a peace deal. A political ceasefire cannot become a free pass for war crimes, including the assassination of 40,000 civilian protestors. Add your name and demand that the men who launched thousands of missiles at civilians face arrest, not amnesty.
PETITION: Justice Before Diplomacy. Indict the IRGC.
TO: The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and European Justice Ministries
A US-Iran peace deal cannot mean amnesty for war crimes.
In January 2026, the Iranian regime assassinated 40,000 civilian protestors. Between February and April 2026, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched an unprecedented campaign of terror, firing over 2,300 ballistic missiles and 5,350 drones at civilian centers across Israel and the broader Middle East.
This devastation was not collateral damage. It was the strategic objective. The IRGC deliberately used illegal cluster bombs in densely populated cities to maximize civilian casualties, a severe violation of international law.
We cannot allow the architects of this massacre to live, travel, and bank freely in the West under the cover of a new diplomatic arrangement. The ICC and European prosecutors have the legal jurisdiction to act right now.
We, the undersigned, demand the immediate issuance of binding international arrest warrants for the IRGC command structure and Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.
Hamas Charter 1988 vs 2017: Why Rhetoric Has Never Meant Reform
Originally published 2017 | Updated January 2026
For many years, Hamas' Charter of 1988 has undermined their legitimacy within the international community. Many advocates in favor of Palestinian independence have found themselves unable to endorse the violence, antisemitism, and calls for genocide contained within the document.
In 2017, Hamas released a revised document titled "General Principles and Policies" in an attempt to rebrand their public image. It served as an affirmation of their ideologies and positions on issues relating to Israel.
Nearly a decade later, and in the shadow of the October 7 massacre, this effort at rebranding can be assessed with greater clarity. From a legal perspective, the revised document did not constitute ideological reform. It was a strategic exercise in linguistic moderation that left Hamas' core objectives intact and legally indefensible.
The Contradiction at the Heart of Hamas' Position
The 2017 document provides insight into Hamas' willingness, or lack thereof, to coexist with an Israeli state:
"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus." [i]
This is an oxymoron of a policy, requiring intellectual gymnastics to understand both its consistency and logic. Acceptance of a state along the pre-1967 armistice lines denotes a willingness or reluctant acceptance to live alongside an Israeli state, rather than a "full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea." The two positions are incompatible.
Their so-called "acceptance" of a state is essentially an acceptance of a starting point from which to appropriate modern-day Israel. This was admitted by senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar in 2011, who referred to the acceptance of the pre-1967 lines as "just a phase" until Hamas has a chance to "regain the land, even if we [Hamas] have to do so inch by inch." [ii]
Following this logic, Brazil could hypothetically accept a state in Rio de Janeiro yet maintain the entire territorial integrity of modern-day Brazil. Or, more appropriately, the Islamic State could accept a state in Raqqa, Syria, yet maintain its ambitions to establish a Caliphate from Spain to Afghanistan.
Under international law, recognition is not symbolic. It is a prerequisite for durable sovereignty, stable borders, and peaceful relations between states. Hamas' position reduces the concept of statehood to a tactical waypoint rather than a terminal political solution. From a legal standpoint, such a posture fails the minimum threshold of good faith required for participation in any peace process.
Antisemitism in the 1988 Hamas Charter
The 1988 Charter contains conspiratorial antisemitic accusations of Jewish and Zionist domination of global institutions, as well as insinuations about the malevolence of Jewish people:
"Writers, intellectuals, media people, orators, educators and teachers, and all the various sectors in the Arab and Islamic world - all of them are called upon to perform their role, and to fulfil their duty, because of the ferocity of the Zionist offensive and the Zionist influence in many countries exercised through financial and media control, as well as the consequences that all this lead to in the greater part of the world." [iii]
"The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying." [iv]
"Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep." [v]
"The Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour." [vi]
Calls for Violence and Genocide in the Original Charter
The original 1988 Charter did not just draw attention to the supposed true aspirations of world Jewry. It openly advocated for violence and genocide against Jewish people:
"We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women." [vii]
However, the original 1988 Charter did not just draw attention to the supposed true aspirations of world Jewry. Rather, they openly advocated for violence and genocide against Jewish people:
"In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised" [viii]
"Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews" [ix]
"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" [x]
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem) [xi]
The 2017 Document: Antisemitism by Substitution
The revised document is careful to adopt a more palatable tone regarding Jewish people:
"Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." [xii]
The term "Jews" has been euphemistically replaced with the term "Zionists." This semantic shift does not withstand legal scrutiny.
When "Zionists" are portrayed as a monolithic global force, accused of controlling international institutions, denied historical or cultural ties to the land, and stripped of the right to national self-determination, the distinction collapses. Contemporary international standards, including those adopted by the U.S. State Department, the EU, and numerous international bodies, recognize that denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination or the legitimacy of Israel's existence constitutes modern antisemitism.
The revised language does not abandon antisemitic tropes; it repackages them in terms more palatable to diplomatic audiences.
The Muslim Brotherhood Connection
The revised document presents a major shift in Hamas' public acknowledgement of its ideological and political affiliation. It makes no mention of The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement designated as a terrorist organization in Russia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. This is despite the fact that Hamas emerged as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and is referenced in the original 1988 Charter:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times." [xv]
Although Hamas has not commented on the Brotherhood's omission from its new document, it is likely an attempt to garner favor with regional players such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia who have designated the group as a terrorist organization.
Yet omission is not disavowal. There is no evidence of ideological severance, operational distancing, or repudiation of the Brotherhood's core worldview. The silence reflects a tactical calculation aimed at diplomatic maneuvering rather than genuine transformation.
The Persistence of Violent Doctrine
Crucially, Hamas has never renounced violence against civilians. The 2017 document does not repudiate the 1988 Charter's endorsement of armed struggle, nor does it disavow the religious framing of violence as an obligation.
This is not merely a rhetorical omission. In international humanitarian law, intent matters, but conduct matters more. The systematic targeting of civilians, hostage-taking, sexual violence, and indiscriminate attacks are prohibited per se, regardless of political grievance. These acts constitute war crimes and, in certain contexts, crimes against humanity.
The events of October 7, 2023, eliminated any residual ambiguity about Hamas' operational doctrine. They demonstrated continuity, not rupture, between ideology and action.
Hamas Leaders Confirm: The Charter Remains
For those who viewed the revised document as a step in the right direction, senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar clarified in May 2017 that its revised document did not contradict its founding Charter of 1988:
"The pledge Hamas made before God was to liberate all of Palestine…The Charter is the core of [Hamas’] position and the mechanism of this position is the document…We have reaffirmed the unchanging constant principles that we do not recognize Israel; we do not recognize the land occupied in 1948 as belonging to Israel and we do not recognize that the people who came here (Jews) own this land." [xvii]
Law, Not Language, Determines Legitimacy
Under international law, legitimacy is not conferred by revised phrasing or selective omissions. It is earned through demonstrable compliance with legal norms: recognition of existing states, renunciation of violence against civilians, adherence to humanitarian law, and acceptance of peaceful dispute resolution.
Hamas has met none of these criteria.
The lesson of the past decade is clear: rhetoric cannot substitute for responsibility. Hamas' revised language did not signal ideological evolution; it signaled strategic adaptation.
International law is not deceived by euphemism. It judges actors by their objectives, conduct, and adherence to binding norms. On all three counts, Hamas remains in fundamental violation of the principles that govern lawful political participation and the protection of human rights.
Rebranding does not erase responsibility. And moderation in words, when contradicted by violence in practice, carries no legal weight.
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice provides free legal aid to survivors of terrorism, human trafficking, and discrimination. We fight against antisemitism around the world and stand up for Israel on the world stage by being the only pro-Israel non-profit with ECOSOC status at the United Nations. Your donations can help make a difference against antisemitism as well as provide free legal aid to those who need it most in Israel.
References
- [i] Hamas 2017, A Document of General Principles & Policies, May 1, viewed 11 May 2017, http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/
- [ii] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) 2011, ‘Hamas Leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar Slams PA President for “Aimless Kangaroo-Like” Political Gymnastics and Says: We Will Not Relinquish Any Piece of Palestinian Land’ (Transcript of Excerpts from Television Interview with Hamas Leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar on Dream 1 TV), July 20, viewed 11 May 2017, https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-leader-mahmoud-al-zahhar-slams-pa-president-abbas-aimless-kangaroo-political-gymnastics-and/transcript
- [iii] Hamas 1988, ‘The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement’, Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Library: The Avalon Project, viewed 11 May 2017, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
- [iv] ibid
- [v] ibid
- [vi] ibid
- [vii] ibid
- [viii] ibid
- [ix] ibid
- [x] ibid
- [xi] ibid
- [xii] Hamas 1988, op. cit.
- [xiii] U.S. Department of State 2017, ‘Defining Anti-Semitism’, January 20, viewed 14 May 2017, https://www.state.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm
- [xiv] Abu-Amr, Z. 1994, Islamic Fundamentalism in the West Bank and Gaza: Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad, India University Press, United States of America, p. 16
- [xv] Hamas 1988, op. cit.
- [xvi] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) 2010, ‘Morsi in 2010: No to Negotiations with the Blood-Sucking Warmongering “Descendants of Apes and Pigs”; Calls to Boycott U.S. Products’ (Transcript of Excerpts from Archival Interviews with Mohammed Morsi, September 23, viewed 14 May 2017, https://www.memri.org/tv/morsi-2010-no-negotiations-blood-sucking-warmongering-descendants-apes-and-pigs-calls-boycott-us/transcript
- [xvii] Jerusalem Post 2017, ‘Hamas Says New Document ‘Not a Substitute for Founding Charter’, May 11, viewed 14 May 2017
Hamas Charter 1988 vs 2017: Why Rhetoric Has Never Meant Reform
Originally published 2017 | Updated January 2026
For many years, Hamas' Charter of 1988 has undermined their legitimacy within the international community. Many advocates in favor of Palestinian independence have found themselves unable to endorse the violence, antisemitism, and calls for genocide contained within the document.
In 2017, Hamas released a revised document titled "General Principles and Policies" in an attempt to rebrand their public image. It served as an affirmation of their ideologies and positions on issues relating to Israel.
Nearly a decade later, and in the shadow of the October 7 massacre, this effort at rebranding can be assessed with greater clarity. From a legal perspective, the revised document did not constitute ideological reform. It was a strategic exercise in linguistic moderation that left Hamas' core objectives intact and legally indefensible.
The Contradiction at the Heart of Hamas' Position
The 2017 document provides insight into Hamas' willingness, or lack thereof, to coexist with an Israeli state:
"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus." [i]
This is an oxymoron of a policy, requiring intellectual gymnastics to understand both its consistency and logic. Acceptance of a state along the pre-1967 armistice lines denotes a willingness or reluctant acceptance to live alongside an Israeli state, rather than a "full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea." The two positions are incompatible.
Their so-called "acceptance" of a state is essentially an acceptance of a starting point from which to appropriate modern-day Israel. This was admitted by senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar in 2011, who referred to the acceptance of the pre-1967 lines as "just a phase" until Hamas has a chance to "regain the land, even if we [Hamas] have to do so inch by inch." [ii]
Following this logic, Brazil could hypothetically accept a state in Rio de Janeiro yet maintain the entire territorial integrity of modern-day Brazil. Or, more appropriately, the Islamic State could accept a state in Raqqa, Syria, yet maintain its ambitions to establish a Caliphate from Spain to Afghanistan.
Under international law, recognition is not symbolic. It is a prerequisite for durable sovereignty, stable borders, and peaceful relations between states. Hamas' position reduces the concept of statehood to a tactical waypoint rather than a terminal political solution. From a legal standpoint, such a posture fails the minimum threshold of good faith required for participation in any peace process.
Antisemitism in the 1988 Hamas Charter
The 1988 Charter contains conspiratorial antisemitic accusations of Jewish and Zionist domination of global institutions, as well as insinuations about the malevolence of Jewish people:
"Writers, intellectuals, media people, orators, educators and teachers, and all the various sectors in the Arab and Islamic world - all of them are called upon to perform their role, and to fulfil their duty, because of the ferocity of the Zionist offensive and the Zionist influence in many countries exercised through financial and media control, as well as the consequences that all this lead to in the greater part of the world." [iii]
"The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying." [iv]
"Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep." [v]
"The Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour." [vi]
Calls for Violence and Genocide in the Original Charter
The original 1988 Charter did not just draw attention to the supposed true aspirations of world Jewry. It openly advocated for violence and genocide against Jewish people:
"We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women." [vii]
However, the original 1988 Charter did not just draw attention to the supposed true aspirations of world Jewry. Rather, they openly advocated for violence and genocide against Jewish people:
"In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised" [viii]
"Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews" [ix]
"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" [x]
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem) [xi]
The 2017 Document: Antisemitism by Substitution
The revised document is careful to adopt a more palatable tone regarding Jewish people:
"Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." [xii]
The term "Jews" has been euphemistically replaced with the term "Zionists." This semantic shift does not withstand legal scrutiny.
When "Zionists" are portrayed as a monolithic global force, accused of controlling international institutions, denied historical or cultural ties to the land, and stripped of the right to national self-determination, the distinction collapses. Contemporary international standards, including those adopted by the U.S. State Department, the EU, and numerous international bodies, recognize that denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination or the legitimacy of Israel's existence constitutes modern antisemitism.
The revised language does not abandon antisemitic tropes; it repackages them in terms more palatable to diplomatic audiences.
The Muslim Brotherhood Connection
The revised document presents a major shift in Hamas' public acknowledgement of its ideological and political affiliation. It makes no mention of The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement designated as a terrorist organization in Russia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. This is despite the fact that Hamas emerged as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and is referenced in the original 1988 Charter:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times." [xv]
Although Hamas has not commented on the Brotherhood's omission from its new document, it is likely an attempt to garner favor with regional players such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia who have designated the group as a terrorist organization.
Yet omission is not disavowal. There is no evidence of ideological severance, operational distancing, or repudiation of the Brotherhood's core worldview. The silence reflects a tactical calculation aimed at diplomatic maneuvering rather than genuine transformation.
The Persistence of Violent Doctrine
Crucially, Hamas has never renounced violence against civilians. The 2017 document does not repudiate the 1988 Charter's endorsement of armed struggle, nor does it disavow the religious framing of violence as an obligation.
This is not merely a rhetorical omission. In international humanitarian law, intent matters, but conduct matters more. The systematic targeting of civilians, hostage-taking, sexual violence, and indiscriminate attacks are prohibited per se, regardless of political grievance. These acts constitute war crimes and, in certain contexts, crimes against humanity.
The events of October 7, 2023, eliminated any residual ambiguity about Hamas' operational doctrine. They demonstrated continuity, not rupture, between ideology and action.
Hamas Leaders Confirm: The Charter Remains
For those who viewed the revised document as a step in the right direction, senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar clarified in May 2017 that its revised document did not contradict its founding Charter of 1988:
"The pledge Hamas made before God was to liberate all of Palestine…The Charter is the core of [Hamas’] position and the mechanism of this position is the document…We have reaffirmed the unchanging constant principles that we do not recognize Israel; we do not recognize the land occupied in 1948 as belonging to Israel and we do not recognize that the people who came here (Jews) own this land." [xvii]
Law, Not Language, Determines Legitimacy
Under international law, legitimacy is not conferred by revised phrasing or selective omissions. It is earned through demonstrable compliance with legal norms: recognition of existing states, renunciation of violence against civilians, adherence to humanitarian law, and acceptance of peaceful dispute resolution.
Hamas has met none of these criteria.
The lesson of the past decade is clear: rhetoric cannot substitute for responsibility. Hamas' revised language did not signal ideological evolution; it signaled strategic adaptation.
International law is not deceived by euphemism. It judges actors by their objectives, conduct, and adherence to binding norms. On all three counts, Hamas remains in fundamental violation of the principles that govern lawful political participation and the protection of human rights.
Rebranding does not erase responsibility. And moderation in words, when contradicted by violence in practice, carries no legal weight.
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice provides free legal aid to survivors of terrorism, human trafficking, and discrimination. We fight against antisemitism around the world and stand up for Israel on the world stage by being the only pro-Israel non-profit with ECOSOC status at the United Nations. Your donations can help make a difference against antisemitism as well as provide free legal aid to those who need it most in Israel.
References
- [i] Hamas 2017, A Document of General Principles & Policies, May 1, viewed 11 May 2017, http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/
- [ii] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) 2011, ‘Hamas Leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar Slams PA President for “Aimless Kangaroo-Like” Political Gymnastics and Says: We Will Not Relinquish Any Piece of Palestinian Land’ (Transcript of Excerpts from Television Interview with Hamas Leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar on Dream 1 TV), July 20, viewed 11 May 2017, https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-leader-mahmoud-al-zahhar-slams-pa-president-abbas-aimless-kangaroo-political-gymnastics-and/transcript
- [iii] Hamas 1988, ‘The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement’, Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Library: The Avalon Project, viewed 11 May 2017, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
- [iv] ibid
- [v] ibid
- [vi] ibid
- [vii] ibid
- [viii] ibid
- [ix] ibid
- [x] ibid
- [xi] ibid
- [xii] Hamas 1988, op. cit.
- [xiii] U.S. Department of State 2017, ‘Defining Anti-Semitism’, January 20, viewed 14 May 2017, https://www.state.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm
- [xiv] Abu-Amr, Z. 1994, Islamic Fundamentalism in the West Bank and Gaza: Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad, India University Press, United States of America, p. 16
- [xv] Hamas 1988, op. cit.
- [xvi] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) 2010, ‘Morsi in 2010: No to Negotiations with the Blood-Sucking Warmongering “Descendants of Apes and Pigs”; Calls to Boycott U.S. Products’ (Transcript of Excerpts from Archival Interviews with Mohammed Morsi, September 23, viewed 14 May 2017, https://www.memri.org/tv/morsi-2010-no-negotiations-blood-sucking-warmongering-descendants-apes-and-pigs-calls-boycott-us/transcript
- [xvii] Jerusalem Post 2017, ‘Hamas Says New Document ‘Not a Substitute for Founding Charter’, May 11, viewed 14 May 2017
A Clean Slate Isn’t Charity, It’s Public Policy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YclR4ZvD9Ng
There’s a moment in every rehabilitation story that doesn’t make it into the inspirational quotes. It’s not the first day sober, or the first job interview, or even the first night of safe sleep. It’s the moment a person realizes the past hasn’t just hurt them, it’s still billing them.
For one woman, a survivor of the sex trade, that bill came in the form of 77 fines totaling about 100,000 shekels. Not a “mistake,” not a single misstep—an accumulated record of survival under conditions most of us are lucky never to face. A teenager subjected to severe sexual assault. A descent into prostitution, drug dependence, and life on the street. And then, against the odds, a decision to climb out.
She did what we demand people do when we speak about “responsibility.” She sought help. With the support of a mobile clinic operated through the Haifa Health Bureau, she got clean. She started looking for work. She began the slow, grinding work of rebuilding a life.
And then she hit a wall made of paperwork.
A six-figure debt doesn’t just punish. It paralyzes. It restricts movement, employment, stability—everything rehabilitation requires. It becomes an anchor disguised as accountability: a millstone around the neck of someone trying to swim to shore.
That is why the decision by Israel’s Enforcement and Collection Authority to erase the full amount is more than a compassionate gesture. It’s a statement—rare, and therefore revealing—about what real rehabilitation actually needs.
Attorney Tamar Stachel-Devor of the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, which provides free legal aid to marginalized populations, described the case as exceptional. It was referred to JIJ's free legal aid department by social worker Noga Shiloh from the mobile clinic, and it succeeded because the system was persuaded to see what the numbers usually hide: this wasn’t a “serial offender.” This was a person who had been failed repeatedly—and was still trying.
We should pause on that word: exceptional.
Why should it be exceptional to recognize that fines piled on vulnerable people often function less like deterrence and more like lifelong barriers? Why should the state need a rare, hard-won intervention to do what’s plainly rational: remove obstacles that make recovery less likely, not more?
Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: debt is one of the quietest ways we keep people trapped. It is the bureaucracy’s version of a closed door. And when it’s applied to survivors of exploitation, it starts to resemble a second punishment—this time for daring to survive in the first place.
Canceling 100,000 shekels doesn’t erase the harm she endured. But it does something almost as important: it restores the possibility of a future that isn’t permanently hostage to her past.
“It gives her hope,” said her attorney, Tamar.
Hope isn’t a slogan. It’s infrastructure. And sometimes, the most effective rehabilitation program begins with the simplest policy decision of all: stop charging people for their trauma.
Originally published in Ynet
A Mission to Secure Justice
The Blind Advocate: Guy Akuka’s Mission to Secure Justice for Israel's Wounded
Guy Akuka, nearly blind since birth, does not see the world like most people. With a visual range of only three meters, he has spent his life sharpening a different kind of vision: a profound sense of social justice. Today, as a senior attorney for the Jerusalem Institute of Justice (JIJ), Akuka has become a lifeline for IDF veterans, providing expert legal representation to those navigating the grueling bureaucracy of the Ministry of Defense.
Legal Advocacy
While many lawyers charge thousands for specialized military advocacy, Akuka provides his services pro bono through JIJ. His mission is to ensure that no soldier is left behind by the system they served.
"I remember myself as a child being drawn to social issues and injustices," he told Israel Hayom. After overcoming significant hurdles to memorize his law school curriculum and pass the bar, he chose to leverage his degree for the public good. Now, under the banner of JIJ, he has become known as the "Defender of the Wounded."
Navigating the "Sea of Bureaucracy"
Representing veterans, Akuka enters the rooms where most dare not go. He accompanies families to medical committees—sometimes held in hospital rooms while the soldier is still unconscious—to determine disability percentages.
"It’s heartbreaking," Akuka says. "Families are in shock and pain, and amidst that, there is a sea of bureaucracy you can easily drown in."
His work has become even more critical following the Iron Swords War. Despite the national consensus on the sacrifice of soldiers, many fighters still struggle to receive recognition for PTSD. "They come to me helpless," Akuka explains. "The Jerusalem Institute of Justice provides this service for free because those who fought for the state shouldn't have to beg the state for recognition."
From the Hospital Room to the Knesset
Akuka’s work with JIJ isn't limited to individual cases; he is a force in the halls of power. He frequently appears before Knesset committees to draft legislation and file petitions to the High Court of Justice to fix systemic failures.
His current battle is one of his most painful: The Recognition of the Fallen.
"In the last two years, 68 soldiers and reservists committed suicide as a result of their service, yet the state does not recognize them as fallen soldiers. It’s a slap in the face to the families. Through the Institute, we have drafted a legal amendment to ensure they are recognized and their families are embraced as bereaved families."
The Ultimate Dream
Despite the grueling hours and the emotional toll of his work with JIJ, Akuka is looking toward the future. His ultimate goal is to move from the podium to the bench.
"I will be a judge in Israel," he declares. "That is the dream. To me, the judicial seat is the pinnacle of doing justice."
Never Again: The Hostages and Postwar Norms
Gasps echoed through the aisles as the plane touched down in Tel Aviv, and passengers opened their phones for the first time in 12 hours. A man in front of me prayed. The first of the last twenty hostages had been freed! As we stood to exit the plane, all words were of the good news. You didn’t need to know Hebrew, French, or English to hear the exuberant joy and disbelieving relief in the voices.
Waiting for passport control, travelers stood in incredulous awe before the ubiquitous posters of hostages. In front of me in line, an African American tourist turned back to say, “I just feel Israeli today! Who wouldn’t, with a mood like this?” There were no taxis available as the visit by President Trump had shut the highway, but no one seemed to mind. I stopped to buy a train ticket, but an attendant batted me away. “No tickets today! No one should need tickets today!” He lifted the gate and waved me through.
Exiting the train in Tel Aviv, I was surrounded by people singing and dancing in the streets. The skyscrapers were covered in messages of thanksgiving. Hamas had, in their usual cruelty, stretched out the release of the hostages over the whole day, which meant that with each passing moment, there was new good news. Pushed along by the great crowd, I walked towards Hostage Square.
For the last two years, the question of the hostages– the two hundred and fifty-one innocent civilians of thirteen nations, kidnapped and tortured to instill fear in and extract concessions from a democratic state– has dominated Israel. But what nation would not be concerned with a hostage crisis of its own citizens on its own borders?
Significant international attention has been paid to the hostages, especially by Jews of the diaspora, including those with few or no ties to Israel. The horrific antisemitic attack on Boulder Jews this past summer highlighted a remarkable fact: in a small Colorado town, almost two years after the hostages were kidnapped, dozens were still marching weekly to raise awareness of their plight. Posters of the hostages hang across major American cities, patiently reposted after every antisemitic defacement. I met a man in rural New Hampshire who wore a dog tag reading “All of the hostages – now!” in Hebrew and English. He could not read Hebrew and had not attended a synagogue since his bar mitzvah fifty years before, but he felt compelled to keep raising awareness of the plight of the hostages.
It is tempting to argue that this sustained wave of activism by American Jews is nothing new. The majority of American Jews have always been supportive of both Israel and the plight of international Jews. But the attention and empathy paid by American Jews to the hostage crisis represent something deeper.
The postwar international order has been predicated on the mantra: ‘never again.’ Never again must civilians live in fear of kidnapping, torture, and abuse. We have not fully lived up to that dream, yet it persists, especially in Jews who have often been the victims of lawless regimes and irrational hate. Hamas’s kidnapping of the hostages represents a direct blow to that postwar order. Standing for the hostages was not just an act of solidarity by diaspora Jews. It was a defense of the rule of law, state authority, and democratic responsibility. If Hamas could take Jews in Israel hostage, civilians everywhere were at risk. But if the hostages were safe, all civilians of all nations would be safe.
Back in Hostage Square in Tel Aviv, hundreds of thousands had pressed into the square and the surrounding streets. Many were weeping. Others knelt on the ground, unable to stand from emotion. They were celebrating the return of twenty innocent human beings made to endure horrors. But they were also celebrating the return of a sense of dignity and justice that Hamas had robbed not just Israel, but the world of. Back in America, I am sure, they are celebrating the same thing.
By a JIJ Intern
Never Again: The Hostages and Postwar Norms
Gasps echoed through the aisles as the plane touched down in Tel Aviv, and passengers opened their phones for the first time in 12 hours. A man in front of me prayed. The first of the last twenty hostages had been freed! As we stood to exit the plane, all words were of the good news. You didn’t need to know Hebrew, French, or English to hear the exuberant joy and disbelieving relief in the voices.
Waiting for passport control, travelers stood in incredulous awe before the ubiquitous posters of hostages. In front of me in line, an African American tourist turned back to say, “I just feel Israeli today! Who wouldn’t, with a mood like this?” There were no taxis available as the visit by President Trump had shut the highway, but no one seemed to mind. I stopped to buy a train ticket, but an attendant batted me away. “No tickets today! No one should need tickets today!” He lifted the gate and waved me through.
Exiting the train in Tel Aviv, I was surrounded by people singing and dancing in the streets. The skyscrapers were covered in messages of thanksgiving. Hamas had, in their usual cruelty, stretched out the release of the hostages over the whole day, which meant that with each passing moment, there was new good news. Pushed along by the great crowd, I walked towards Hostage Square.
For the last two years, the question of the hostages– the two hundred and fifty-one innocent civilians of thirteen nations, kidnapped and tortured to instill fear in and extract concessions from a democratic state– has dominated Israel. But what nation would not be concerned with a hostage crisis of its own citizens on its own borders?
Significant international attention has been paid to the hostages, especially by Jews of the diaspora, including those with few or no ties to Israel. The horrific antisemitic attack on Boulder Jews this past summer highlighted a remarkable fact: in a small Colorado town, almost two years after the hostages were kidnapped, dozens were still marching weekly to raise awareness of their plight. Posters of the hostages hang across major American cities, patiently reposted after every antisemitic defacement. I met a man in rural New Hampshire who wore a dog tag reading “All of the hostages – now!” in Hebrew and English. He could not read Hebrew and had not attended a synagogue since his bar mitzvah fifty years before, but he felt compelled to keep raising awareness of the plight of the hostages.
It is tempting to argue that this sustained wave of activism by American Jews is nothing new. The majority of American Jews have always been supportive of both Israel and the plight of international Jews. But the attention and empathy paid by American Jews to the hostage crisis represent something deeper.
The postwar international order has been predicated on the mantra: ‘never again.’ Never again must civilians live in fear of kidnapping, torture, and abuse. We have not fully lived up to that dream, yet it persists, especially in Jews who have often been the victims of lawless regimes and irrational hate. Hamas’s kidnapping of the hostages represents a direct blow to that postwar order. Standing for the hostages was not just an act of solidarity by diaspora Jews. It was a defense of the rule of law, state authority, and democratic responsibility. If Hamas could take Jews in Israel hostage, civilians everywhere were at risk. But if the hostages were safe, all civilians of all nations would be safe.
Back in Hostage Square in Tel Aviv, hundreds of thousands had pressed into the square and the surrounding streets. Many were weeping. Others knelt on the ground, unable to stand from emotion. They were celebrating the return of twenty innocent human beings made to endure horrors. But they were also celebrating the return of a sense of dignity and justice that Hamas had robbed not just Israel, but the world of. Back in America, I am sure, they are celebrating the same thing.
By a JIJ Intern
Navigating Rehabilitation Benefits: Israel’s Ministry of Defense
How to Properly Prepare Your Claim to the Rehabilitation Department of Israel’s Ministry of Defense
When applying to the Rehabilitation Department of Israel’s Ministry of Defense, the first steps are critical. Even a small mistake at the outset can jeopardize recognition of your injury — and with it, access to treatment, rehabilitation, and compensation.
At the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, our legal team has extensive experience guiding veterans, reservists, and their families through this complex process. Below, we outline the key principles every applicant should know.
1. Prepare Your Medical Documentation
Israeli law requires anyone injured during military service or reserve duty to provide up-to-date medical documentation that clearly describes the condition.
For psychological injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), this means obtaining an official diagnosis from a psychiatrist that explicitly states PTSD as a recognized medical condition. Without this documentation, the recognition process cannot even begin.
2. Injury Recognition – The Foundation of the Process
The first stage of filing a claim is injury recognition. At this stage, the Ministry of Defense decides whether your injury will be acknowledged as service-related.
If recognition is denied, the case will not advance to the medical board, blocking any chance of further evaluation. Because of this, precision and legal accuracy at this stage are essential.
3. Preparing for a PTSD Evaluation
PTSD must be recognized as an independent medical condition under Israeli law. Not every complaint will result in recognition.
Your symptoms must be presented in line with clinical diagnostic criteria. Knowing which symptoms matter, and how to describe them, is critical. Consulting both a lawyer and a PTSD specialist can make the difference between approval and rejection.
4. Professional Guidance Is the Key to Success
Every Israeli citizen has the right to apply for rehabilitation if the injury is service-related. However, the outcome depends largely on how the case is presented.
At JIJ, our lawyers provide full guidance at every step — from gathering medical records to preparing for the medical board. Our mission is to ensure your claim is submitted with clarity, accuracy, and confidence.
Conclusion
The recognition process is as much legal as it is medical. Proper preparation and professional guidance often determine whether a claim succeeds or fails.
At JIJ, we provide this legal support completely free of charge, ensuring that every soldier and veteran can access the rehabilitation and justice they deserve.
