Gaza Passover Riots
Evening update on the situation in Gaza:
Thousands of Palestinians are rioting in five locations throughout the Gaza Strip, rolling burning tires and hurling stones at the security fence and at IDF troops, who are responding with riot dispersal means and firing towards main instigators.
The IDF has enforced a closed military zone in the area surrounding the Gaza Strip in accordance with situation assessments. All activity in the area requires military consent. There are no special instructions for Israeli citizens throughout the Home Front.
With a reinforcement of troops, the IDF is prepared to respond to the violent riots planned throughout the Gaza Strip if needed. The IDF views with great severity any breach of Israeli sovereignty or damage to the security fence. The Hamas terror organization endangers the lives of civilians and uses their own lives for the purpose of terror. The Hamas terror organization is responsible for the violent riots and everything taking places under its auspices.
IDF - Situation update from the Gaza Strip: 17,000 Palestinians are rioting in five locations along the Gaza Strip security fence. The rioters are rolling burning tires and hurling firebombs and rocks at the security fence and at IDF troops, who are responding with riot dispersal means and firing towards main instigators.
With a reinforcement of troops, the IDF is prepared to respond to the violent riots planned throughout the Gaza Strip, if necessary. The IDF views with great severity any breach of Israeli sovereignty or attempts to damage the security infrastructure. The Hamas terror organization endangers the lives of the people of Gaza and uses them to camouflage their terror activity. The Hamas terrorist organization is responsible for the violent riots and everything taking place under its auspices.
IDF: A seven year-old girl was sent across the Gaza Strip border by the Hamas terror organization, where IDF troops identified her.
Upon realizing she was a child, IDF troops ensured she returned safely to her parents. The Hamas terror organization cynically uses women and children, sending them to the security fence and endangering their lives.
IDF: Commanding Officer of the Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Eyal Zamir: "We are identifying attempts to carry out terror attacks under the camouflage of riots. We urge citizens to stay away and warn the Hamas terror organization, which is responsible for the violent riots and everything taking places under its auspices."
Video documenting sabotage attempts that took place during today’s events.
http://videoidf.co.il/300318-CL-01.mp4
IDF: A short while ago, the IDF thwarted an attempted shooting attack by a terror cell in the Northern Gaza Strip. During the attack, two terrorists approached the security fence and fired towards IDF troops. In response, IDF troops immediately fired according to the rules of engagement, targeting the terrorists as well as targeting three nearby terror sites belonging to the Hamas terrorist organization with tank fire and IAF fighter jets. No injuries were reported and no damage was caused.
This severe shooting attack is further proof that the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip use these violent riots in order to camouflage terror.
In addition, IDF troops fired towards suspects who had infiltrated into Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip via the security fence.
The Hamas terror organization is responsible for violent riots and everything taking place under its auspices. The IDF will not allow the security fence to be turned into an area of terror.
Video documenting an attempt by terrorists to infiltrate Israel that was thwarted by the IDF.
http://videoidf.co.il/300318-CL-03.mp4
Hamas-led Confrontation Campaign
The Palestinian leadership's latest ploy aims to ignite a confrontation at Israel's borders, in particular with the Gaza Strip. Led and financed mainly by Hamas, the plan is to have thousands of Gazans gather and camp close to the border fence in the coming weeks. They may initiate a mass march, or even a violent storming of the border and clashes with Israeli security forces. The culmination of the campaign is slated for May 15 (the day after Israel declared independence in 1948, labeled "Nakba – Disaster – Day" by the Palestinians).
It should be noted that the Palestinian leadership and Israel agreed in 1995 to resolve through negotiation, not by unilateral moves or violence, permanent status issues such as the settlements, security arrangements and borders, as well as the refugee issue.
The Palestinian representatives again and again rejected serious efforts to reach peace agreements, including far-reaching Israeli proposals in the negotiations held in 2000 and in 2008.The Palestinian leaders left the negotiation table once again in 2014.
Gaza is facing a worrying humanitarian situation, brought on by the dismal failure of Hamas and the PA to provide for the welfare of Gaza's population. Instead of taking responsibility, Palestinian leaders are trying to put the blame on Israel.
Hamas-led Confrontation Campaign
REMEMBER:
1. The campaign organized by Palestinian leaders is in fact a dangerous, premeditated provocation meant to fan the flames of the conflict and increase tension.
2. Israel has the right to defend its borders and to prevent infiltration into its sovereign territory.
3. In the last two weeks, there has been an increase in terror attacks on Israel, supported and encouraged by Palestinian leaders.
4. For almost eleven years, Hamas has ruled the Gaza Strip, preferring to continue the conflict at the expense of the welfare of the Gazan people.
5. Hamas uses its resources for armament, smuggling tunnels, and other militaristic purposes, instead of investing in the civilian infrastructures in Gaza.
6. Hamas is spending more than $10 million to finance the current confrontation campaign, paying Gazans to get them to participate.
7. Hamas's primary goal remains to destroy Israel.
8. Hamas continues to exploit the civilian population of Gaza as human shields.
9. Israel continues its humanitarian support of Gaza, allowing entry of goods, electricity and water as well as the passage of people via Israel for medical reasons.
STOP the LIES of HAMAS -- Share this information with your friends!
A Crime or not a Crime?
By Carol Shi
Should Buyers of Sex Services Be Criminalized?
First Things First: Is Prostitution Bad?
To justify imposing some sort of sanction on purchasers of sex services, we must first acknowledge the dire dangers of prostitution. Prostitution is not merely ‘paid consent for sex’. People in financially vulnerable positions consent to being paid below the minimum wage, or to selling their organs to live. People consent to many things, especially if money is involved, in order to survive. Moreover, the health and safety concerns in prostitution are beyond comprehension – this includes sexual harassment, physical and emotional abuse, rape, and rape without a condom.[1] In the words of a prostitute, ‘What rape is to others is normal to us.’[2] Prostitutes have one of the highest HIV rates of any population studied, with rates as high as 93%.[3] Passing legislation to clamp down on this industry is absolutely crucial. The legalization of prostitution has proven to fail in achieving protection, freedom, or equality – the world is too cruel to allow that. The only way forward is enacting legislation to diminish the demand by penalizing purchasers.
The Knesset’s Dilemma
For the past 8 years, Israel’s government has been in the talks to adopt the ‘Nordic model’ criminalizing the purchaser but not the seller. However, Committee discussions have deviated to adopt a ‘soft’ criminal approach, which is to impose administrative penalties on purchasers, instead of criminalizing them.
An administrative approach looks like this: A man is caught purchasing sex services from a male prostitute. The purchaser is first given a warning. Ignoring this warning and choosing to indulge in another momentary craving, he is caught a second time. This time, he is handed out a fine and is required to attend mandatory workshops on gender equality and how a body is not a commodity. He reluctantly pays the fine, a third of his monthly income in a top financial consulting firm in Tel Aviv. He attends the workshops while thinking of what to watch on Netflix when he goes home. Considering how the fine was insignificant in comparison to his high paying job, he decides to take a risk and try again. He doesn’t get caught. Perfect. He goes again, to his favorite male prostitute whose name he doesn’t even know. He’s caught a third time. Now, not only is he fined half of his monthly income, he’s given a criminal penalty. After four counts of purchasing prostitutes within the two months, he’s finally criminalized. This is what we call ‘scaled criminalization’,[4] while still falling underneath the administrative approach.
Would a criminal penalty on first count have deterred this man in the first place? The answer is likely yes. Criminalization is arguably the strongest deterrence for several key reasons.
The Rule of Law – What is it?
First, criminalization is most effective for countries that uphold the rule of law. The rule of law is that every person must be held accountable to the law, no matter how powerful or influential they are. This includes lawmakers, politicians, and judges. So, when an individual or governmental body contravenes the law, their actions will be assessed by the courts.
How is the rule of law relevant to deterring purchasers of sex services? Here’s how. Israel is a democratic state, and a core element of democracy is to uphold the rule of law.[5] In studies conducted on purchasers of sex services, countries with a stronger level of democracy, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, had a stronger reaction of deterrence to criminal penalties. Israel is ranked 29th in the world, and first in the Middle East in democracy. Thus, it is safe to say that prospective purchasers will certainly be deterred in Israel when criminal sanctions are imposed.
Shame Sucks
Second, there is a strong social stigma associated with criminal convictions. An administrative fine that can be easily paid off, leaving no criminal record or reputation taint. However, because a criminal conviction is ‘harder’ to receive, it more strongly implies guilt – hence, the social stigma.
People fear the social stigma of having a criminal offence being made known to family and friends. [6] In an interview article on Marie Claire, a client of an escort said, ‘Of course, my wife doesn’t know about any of this – if she ever found out she would leave me immediately. I couldn’t bear to lose her. Occasionally, I have nightmares about my teenage sons discovering what I do, which would probably be worse than my wife finding out. No one in the house would ever speak to me again.’[7]
Shame destroys reputation, which is particularly important for middle to upper-middle class men, who value reputation as it provides them with employment opportunities.[8] Shame also influences beliefs, as it affects what one would think is ‘harmless behavior’ to what is reserved for ‘bad types’.[9] Hence, those who consider themselves with decent morals, do not wish to associate themselves with the ‘bad types’. Thus, the shame element of criminalization is one of the highest form of deterrence, which an administrative penalty does not offer.
A Guilty Mind
Third, purchasers are very aware of the harms prostitutes face. A study was conducted on purchasers of sex services in Lebanon. A 21 year-old buyer, a student, stated that ‘of course’ no woman is happy to be a prostitute. He also expressed awareness of pimping and the mistreatment of women.[10] 80% of the buyers surveyed were aware of the poor socio-economic background of women who enter prostitution,[11] implying that they are aware of the vulnerable states of prostitutes. 82% of the buyers understood that women were under the control of a pimp, and 73% even had direct interaction with the pimp.[12] 61% were aware of the exploitative conditions the women were subject to in prostitution.[13] A 30 year-old buyer, again, married with children, stated ‘For some of them, circumstances force them … They talk a lot, but you don’t want to listen.’[14] Such indifference despite the awareness of the circumstances of vulnerable women should be more harshly punished than simply with administrative sanctions.
The Sex Trafficking Epidemic
Finally, criminalization is a stronger stance to abolishing sex trafficking. The fact is that the male demand for prostitution constitutes the root cause for the trafficking of persons.[15] Both prostitution and sex trafficking would not exist without men’s demand for sex services.[16] Essentially, if there is no demand, there will be no supply.
Forced labor and sex trafficking has been a prominent issue in Israel over the past decade. Recently, there has been an increase of women from Eastern Europe who came to Israel with a tourist visa to serve in the sex industry.[17] In the beginning of 2017, 72 women from Ukraine and Georgia were caught attempting to illegally enter Israel for prostitution purposes.[18] Typically, criminals contact women in Russia or Ukraine online, luring them to arrive in Israel to work as sex workers, promising them large sums of money.[19] However, even if an individual initially consents to participating in prostitution, this is completely eradicated if they are subsequently trapped in service through psychological manipulation or physical force, and becomes a victim of sex trafficking.[20] Thus, there is a pressing need to curb sex trafficking in Israel.
The theory that prostitution laws are related to tackling sex trafficking is not new. The economics behind it is simple: demand plays a vital role. Administrative sanctions reduce demand, but criminalization aims to nullify it. According to the Swedish National Criminal Police, the harsh penalties of the criminalization have been an obstacle to human traffickers and organized criminal groups.[21] Thus, criminalization of the purchase of sexual services destroys the incentive for criminal organizations to establish themselves, which will more effectively diminish sex trafficking in Israel.
Looking Ahead
Allow me to conclude with a final illustration: The purchase of sex services is now criminalized. A man with previous prostitute-buying habits decides he has a familiar urge today. As he strolls along a dark and dingy part of Tel Aviv where he used to visit regularly during surges of similar desire. He thinks about the new law recently imposed, and sees himself standing before a court, facing criminal charges. But what are the chances of him actually being caught and bring brought to court? He remembers, he lives in Israel, not Syria. He winces at the resource and time consuming aspects of being taken to court. Curse this upright democratic system that holds individuals accountable when contravening the law! Still, his urges are pressing and he catches a familiar face smirking at him from a corner. He advances towards this young girl, grinning at the thought of what he could do to her. He stops in his steps, considering how this young girl is likely only in this industry due to financially precarious reasons and is likely to be under the manipulation of a pimp. This young girl may or may not be have been trafficked. She may or may not be underage. But his urges call him, so he shrugs his thoughts off and continues towards this young girl. He begins conversation and reaches for his wallet. He pauses. He thinks about how if he is brought to court and faced with criminal charges, what will his family and colleagues say? What will his boss say? What will his high school friends talk about at their annual reunion? His girlfriend will certainly leave him. Word in the banking industry spreads quickly. He’ll have trouble getting a recommendation for job opportunities. This isn’t something he could pay and walk off from. This charge will taint him. He puts his wallet back in his pocket, apologizes to the young girl, and walks away.
[1] Silbert, H. Pines, A. Y. and Lynch, T. (1970). Substance Abuse and Prostitution. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 14, pp. 193-7.
[2] Farley, M. Lynne, J. and Cotton A. J. (2005). Prostitution in Vancouver: Violence and the Colonization of the First Nations Women. Transcult Psychiatry, 42(2), pp. 242-271.
[3] Ward, H. and Day, S. (2006). What Happens to Women Who Sell Sex? Report of a Unique Occupational Cohort. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 82(5), pp. 413-417.
[4] Haaretz. 2018. Israeli gov't committee opts for 'soft criminalization' of prostitute clients - Israel News - Haaretz.com . [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-gov-t-committee-opts-for-soft-criminalization-of-prostitute-clients-1.5729971. [Accessed 15 March 2018].
[5] H.C. 910/86 Ressler v. Minister of Defence, [32].
[6] Government Offices of Sweden (2010). Evaluation of the Prohibition of the Purchase of Sexual Services. Swedish Parliament, p. 38.
[7] Thompson, A. (2016). Why Do Men Pay for Sex?. Marie Claire UK. [online] Available at: http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/reports/sex-workers-11125 [Accessed 15 Mar. 2018].
[8] Tang, X. (2013) Shame: A Different Criminal Law Proposal for Bullies. Cleveland State Law Review, 61(3), pp. 649-663.
[9] Ibid.
[10] KAFA (enough) Violence and Exploitation (2014). Exploring the Demand for Prostitution: What Male Buyers Say About Their Motives, Practices, and Perception. Ghada Jabbour, pp. 25.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid, pp. 26.
[13] Ibid, pp. 27.
[14] Ibid, pp. 26.
[15] MacKinnon, C. A. (2011). Trafficking, Prostitution, and Inequality. Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review, 46(2), pp. 271-309.
[16] Joy Ngozi Ezeilo, Report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, A/HRC/23/48, United Nations, 18 March 2013.
[17] Hotline for Refugees and Migrants (2015). Trafficking in Persons in Israel. Tel Aviv, pp. 6.
[18] Yaron, L. (2017). Number of Women Brought to Israel for Prostitution on the Rise - and the Police Are Struggling to Deal With It. Haaretz. [online] Available at: http://www.haaretz.com/misc/haaretzcomsmartphoneapp/.premium-women-brought-to-israel-for-prostitution-on-increase-1.5481624 [Accessed 15 Mar. 2018].
[19] Ibid.
[20] U.S. Department of State (2017). Trafficking in Persons Report, pp. 17.
[21] Government Offices of Sweden (2010). Evaluation of the Prohibition of the Purchase of Sexual Services. Swedish Parliament, pp. 37.
THE CITY OF THE FUTURE
By Nikki Golomb.
Palestinian-American businessman and entrepreneur Bashar al-Masri is making history – by building the first modern Palestinian city. Rawabi, the name of the city and the Arabic word for “hills”, is envisioned to become a modern, hi-tech, and comfortable city in a region devastated by poverty and poor infrastructure. Though the city is still in the process of being built, the first residents moved to Rawabi in August 2015. Despite political and economic challenges, it has already created 6,000 new jobs in construction and engineering, and estimated to produce another 5,000 in retail, health, and more.
Al-Masri has worked closely with Israeli contractors, advisers, and companies to import necessary materials. Furthermore, Rawabi is modeled off of Israeli city Modi’in, an Israeli city which was also meticulously planned. Al-Masri continues to visit Modi’in for ideas, and draws inspiration from Israel’s modern and hi-tech atmosphere. His work with Israelis is groundbreaking, and the unique partnerships he has created inspire optimism with regards to Israeli-Palestinian business relations and the future of intercultural cooperation.
Surprisingly, al-Masri wasn’t always open to working with Israelis. He was jailed eight times as a teenager for throwing rocks and organizing demonstrations, was involved in the first intifada, and was a close acquaintance of Yasser Arafat. Although he still refuses to work with Israeli settlers in the West Bank, he has had positive experiences working with Israeli businessmen and women and has only kind things to say. Israeli workers and companies have worked with al-Masri to help him create the new city and, despite political and economic challenges, continue to provide technology and other material supplies in addition to advisement and consultation.
Despite this great success and the promising new Palestinian city, however, al-Masri has faced substantial backlash from Palestinians. They accuse him of supporting Israel’s “occupation, colonization and apartheid against the Palestinian people,” and even go so far as to say that creating a modern, comfortable Palestinian city undermines the daily struggles they are facing. The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), the leading organization of the BDS movement, has condemned Rawabi as “normalization” of anti-Palestinian Israeli policies and claims that it undermines the Palestinian fight for freedom and justice. Al-Masri disagrees, instead arguing that building Rawabi will not only improve the lives of Palestinians, but also prevent Israelis from settling there. (It should be noted, however, that Rawabi is located in Area A and is thus under Arab control where Israelis are not allowed to live.) He also points out that the Palestinian Authority has provided no funding towards the establishment of Rawabi; the PA, he believes, should view it as a priority and invest in Rawabi by building a school, clinic, or other public infrastructure, yet he has not received any financial support from them whatsoever.
Bashar al-Masri’s project is groundbreaking in two endeavors: first, by creating the first Palestinian city to be planned from the very beginning, and second, by establishing significant business ties between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel has helped in nearly every stage of the creation of Rawabi, despite it being an entirely Palestinian city. Instead of viewing this as a hand outstretched for peace, however, the anti-Israel movement has just added this Palestinian city to its list of projects presumed to revoke the rights of Palestinians. Yet this could not be further from the truth. Rawabi is creating jobs exclusively for Palestinians, providing a comfortable and affordable living situation, and improving the overall quality of life for Palestinians. Modernization does not equal Westernization, nor does working with Israelis equate to denying Palestinians their rights. When the PA and critics realize this, we can expect to see a positive change in Israeli-Palestinian relations, as well as better lives for Palestinians who are struggling.
JESSICA MEMORIAL SERVICE
In August 2016, Jessica, a slave of the sex-industry, took her life in room 5 of the brothel on 98 HaYarkon Street, Tel Aviv. She was only 36 years old. She died where she had lived and had been abused by dozens of men every day for more than 15 years. Jessica is only one of the hundreds of women who have died as a result of a prostitution in Israel in the last 5 years.
On August 18th, 2016, the first anniversary of Jessica’s death, a memorial assembly was held at Kikar Atarim Square in Tel Aviv; this assembly was dedicated to her memory and the memory of the victims of prostitution in Israel. It was well attended by the public and member of Knesset Shuli Mualem. Every year we continue to commemorate the loss of lives of women in the sex trade.
Want to know when is the next memorial event? Like us on Facebook to get our activity updates – Click here.
When Does Criticism of Israel Become Anti-Semitism?
By Nikki Golomb.
As a Jewish-American university student, I have been faced with the impossible task of determining when a professor, a student group, or an event has gone too far in criticism of Israel as a Jewish democracy. Is this legitimate criticism of Israel as an imperfect state, or is it holding Israel to an unfair standard of perfection? Is this criticism of Israel as a Jewish nation, or a political state? Is this anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism, a more “acceptable” form of criticism? And if so, where do we draw the line?
Anti-Israel rhetoric is often referred to as the “new anti-Semitism.” Classical anti-Semitism – such as the blood libel, Nazi symbolism and graffiti, and destruction of Jewish tombstones – are easy to identify, illegal, and largely socially unacceptable. Anti-Israel speech, on the other hand, is much more palatable to the public. However, anti-Israel rhetoric is often used as a more “acceptable” form of anti-Jewish sentiment, as the only Jewish state is held to a higher standard than any other country in the world.
There is a very fine line between legitimate political criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Many of us know all too well that recognizing the line is not only very difficult, but also vital in order to not infringe upon free speech while also condemning hate speech. However, Israel is not perfect, and thus denouncing any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism ignores the political challenges faced within Israel and also holds Israel to a different standard than other countries. So how do we know when to speak up against anti-Semitism?
Natan Sharansky, Chairman of the Executive for the Jewish Agency for Israel and human rights activist, proposed what he calls the “3-D test” to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. This test dictates that if a statement or action demonizes Israel, holds Israel to a double standard, or delegitimizes Israel (the “3 Ds”), it is in fact anti-Semitic.
Demonization
Demonization, the first of the 3 Ds, is relatively easy to identify as it has been a marker of anti-Semitism for centuries. Depicting Jews as the embodiment of evil (i.e. “Jews have horns” or “Jews are the devil”) is one of the oldest forms of anti-Semitism. Today, demonization of Israel includes comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, equating Palestinian refugee camps with concentration camps, or depicting Israeli political leaders as the devil.
Demonization of Israel is clear anti-Semitism, with a shift of focus from Jews as individuals to the Jewish nation. When criticism of Israel is focused on its nature as a Jewish state, when its policies are blown out of proportion, and when criticism reflects anti-Jewish sentiment that has persisted for centuries, anti-Semitism is the culprit.
Double Standard
Discriminatory laws holding Jews to a different standard than other citizens have also existed for centuries. From empires imposing additional taxes on Jews, to outright denying the right to Jewish practice, to more recent ghettoization, Jews have been subject to different laws than their neighbors.
The same is happening today, at the international level. Of the 2017-2018 UNGA resolutions condemning countries, 20 of the resolutions were against Israel – and six against the rest of the world combined. Furthermore, since the establishment of the UN Human Rights Council, about 50% of its resolutions concerning specific countries have been against Israel. No other country has received such treatment. Singling out Israel for condemnation while ignoring massive human rights abuses in other parts of the world is holding Israel to a double standard. Expecting Israel and Israeli organizations to adhere to a higher standard of human rights singles out Israel as the only Jewish state, and is thus an expression of anti-Semitism.
Delegitimization
Delegitimization is slightly harder to identify, but just as important. It refers to any action or comment delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish democracy, or denying Israel’s right to exist as one. It can be accusing Israel of colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid; or it can be claiming that Israel was established illegally and on lands that it has no right to own, thus delegitimizing Israel’s very right to exist at all.
Dozens of Muslim states and Christian states exist, yet there is only one Jewish state. Denying its right to exist is inherently anti-Semitic because it discriminates against Israel based on its nature as a Jewish state. Making false claims of ethnic cleansing or apartheid delegitimizes Israel by implying that it is founded on racism and discrimination and thus has no right to sovereignty. The same argument can be made of the claim that Israel has no legal, historical, or cultural right to the land; however, making these claims is anti-Semitic because it nullifies Jewish history, nationalism, and right to self-determination.
Discussion and Conclusion
Expressing disapproval for specific Israeli policies is a legitimate form of criticism. Arguing against political action, the way one does with regards to other countries, is not only acceptable but also healthy – no positive progress can be made without open dialogue and political discussion. However, when one (or more) of the “3 Ds” become present and that criticism crosses the line into anti-Semitism, nothing productive can happen. No positive change can happen when the criticism is based on anti-Jewish arguments. When someone demonizes Israel, holds it to a double standard, or delegitimizes it, their tactics must be called out for what they are. This is the only way to ensure that anti-Semitism is recognized and stopped, and legitimate criticism is taken seriously so as to promote progress.
United Nations and Genocide
By Nikki Golomb.
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice conducted a report assessing the ability of the United Nations to protect populations from genocide. The document analyzes the legal obligations of the international order to protect populations from genocide, as well as the success the UN has had in doing so. The report is split into three sections: historical background, current assessment, and discussion and recommendations. JIJ took into consideration six case studies total, three historical instances of genocide and three current events. From these analyses, the report then draws a conclusion on whether the UN successfully protects populations from genocide. Finally, JIJ provides several recommendations for the UN and other intergovernmental organizations to improve the protection provided to vulnerable populations.
Historical Background
After providing the UN definition of genocide and the methodology used to conduct the report, JIJ explores in the document the significance of the Holocaust in the establishment of the United Nations and the creation of a body meant to protect vulnerable populations. The historical uniqueness of the Holocaust and the inability of the world to prevent it sparked the need for an international body to prevent and punish such crimes against humanity – and thus, the United Nations was born.
However, incidents of genocide that followed the establishment of the UN exposed the flaws in the organization’s ability to enforce preventative or protective measures. In fact, although the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide mandates that contracting parties make an effort “to prevent and to punish” genocide, there is no mention of counteracting it. Cambodia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia – three countries which experienced a genocide after the establishment of the UN – were all addressed by the UN and had a peacekeeping force (PKF) sent before the tensions escalated into genocide. The PKF, however, were clearly unsuccessful. This was due partially to the narrow parameters the PKF were given to work, and partially to a lack of political will to engage. Because of complex regional and interstate conflicts, the UN was unable to gather a consensus to form a mandate strong enough to keep the violence from escalating. In other words, politics got in the way of protection of human rights and lives – all three times.
Current Assessment
Several current conflicts have been identified by the UN as either crimes against humanity or genocide. The conflicts analyzed in this report are Darfur, the Rohingya people in Myanmar, and ISIS and Syria. Once again, the UN has failed to label any of these as a genocide (except for ISIS’s violence against the Yazidi people), further demonstrating the lack of a political will to intercede, as labeling them as a genocide would obligate the UN to act. Instead, by recognizing the crimes against humanity, the international order is able to enforce weak mandates and sanctions that do not complicate international relations among permanent member-states of the United Nations, but also do nothing to stem the tide of violence in the regions. Furthermore, no action can be taken without a unanimous decision made by the permanent member-states of the UN. Because of the complicated relations among these states, unanimity is rare. History appears to be repeating itself, as politics are once again impeding the international order’s ability to protect populations from genocide.
Discussion and Recommendations
The report concludes with an analysis of the problems affecting the UN’s ability to protect from genocide. These problems include politicization and lack of political will. Politicization refers to the tendency of the UN to become so consumed in interstate politics that human rights abuses become a secondary issue. Despite the founding assumption that the global community has a responsibility to protect, the UN has struggled to achieve a collective will to intervene in genocide and other crimes against humanity due to politics. Lack of political will is related in that states do not believe intervention to be in their national interest, and as a result have no incentive to intervene. This again implies that politics, specifically domestic politics, supersede international human rights.
JIJ then offers a series of recommendations to the UN to better protect vulnerable populations. These recommendations, designed to address the problems analyzed in the report, cover a wide variety of possible solutions, from adding “counteracting” genocide to the language of the Convention to enforcing stricter human rights requirements of member-states. The recommendations also include demanding better accountability and challenging the notion that international human rights abuses are not of national interest, thus addressing the problem of politicization.
Should the UN (or other IGOs and human rights activists) adopt these recommendations, the international community would be better equipped to prevent, counteract, and punish genocide. Minimizing politicization, enforcing stronger mandates, encouraging states to intervene, and providing incentives for states to maintain a certain human rights standard are basic yet vital changes that can be made to improve the global response to genocide. Once we are able to look at the past and recognize where we went wrong, we will be able to address the problems that still exist today and, hopefully, work together towards a future of human rights and dignity for all.
None Of Whose Business?
By John Hyrcanus.
Trying to decide who is ‘up’ and who is ‘down’ after the U.N’s recent condemnation of America’s decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem seems a futile exercise. A more consequential issue may be emerging with long-term implications for America, the United Nations and the Middle East - “when does a sovereign nation’s independent action become the legitimate business (that is, concern) of the U.N.?”
To be specific, “is it the rightful business of the U.N. to pass institutional judgment on America’s sovereign decision about her own embassy?”
By a 128-9 vote, the General Assembly condemned America’s embassy decision. This followed almost immediately upon America’s veto of an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution last week to the same effect. These votes certainly reveal long-held convictions of the United Nations.
The U.N. has never claimed formal, supra-sovereign authority to oversee the internal affairs of Israel, but has frequently spoken and, where allowed, acted as though it is entitled to do so - especially where Jerusalem is concerned. Typically, the U.N. appeals to its self-proclaimed responsibility to serve as an ‘unbiased’ trustee of the city’s sacred religious sites.
A parallel position had remained largely hidden until now. This holds that Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital is somehow ‘open’, even though the city’s status has been legally, politically and militarily resolved on Israel’s behalf, repeatedly, for more than a century.
These unwarranted U.N. assertions show how last week’s vote of condemnation was a wholly political, not legal, event. This may be why Prime Minister Netanyahu, using the harshest possible language, described the United Nations itself as a “house of lies” in advance of the vote.
U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had warned Assembly members in advance that any intrusion into United States sovereignty would provoke a specific and individually-tailored American response. Member nations either judged this an empty threat or reasoned that any consequences would be less serious than appearing to ratify, by implication, this statement of historic fact: “Jerusalem has always been the national capital of the Jewish people.”
The Administration has already matched actions to words. The U.S. will reduce its contribution to the U.N. budget next year by 285 million dollars. Reductions of direct aid to other nations who joined the vote will be weighed separately.
America’s embassy policy in Israel falls far outside any legitimate ‘business’ oversight of the United Nations. America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital neither contradicts nor repudiates any U.N. statute. If America’s decision implies rogue rejection of a tacit U.N. insistence on keeping Jerusalem’s status open, then an open airing of ‘rights’ is long overdue.
In accord with international law, history and tradition, the location of Israel’s capital does not come under the determination of America or the U.N. The United States will move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for the sufficient reason that Israel has always declared Jerusalem to be her national capital.