A Step Too Far: The UN Human Rights Council COI Report on Israel
After clashes between Israel and Hamas in May 2021, the UN Human Rights Council opened a Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate human rights abuses in Israel. Over the course of the past two years, the COI has produced three reports detailing one-sided, biased information about the events on the ground, falsely portraying reality for so many Israelis and Palestinians. In its latest report, the COI focused on “Israel’s attacks, restrictions, and harassment of civil society actors” and revealed numerous concerning human rights violations in the Palestinian Territories and East Jerusalem. However, the UN fell into its biased routine of disproportionate representation once again.
Although unequal treatment is expected with the UN’s long history of anti-Israel sentiment, the most recent proceedings took matters to new heights. Throughout the report and live session, the COI explicitly supported BDS and similar Israel-boycott organizations and categorized them as legitimate forms of protest. The COI also ignored terrorism enacted by both Palestinian leadership and civilians and called on UN member states to support the Palestinian resistance. These actions not only fail to uphold the COI’s mission to “establish the facts and circumstances” and “identify those responsible,” but it glorifies antisemitism in the world’s most prominent human rights organization, setting a precedent that poses a serious threat to Jews around the world (the UN Independent International COI on the OPT Mandate, 2021).
In the COI report’s section detailing Israel’s delegitimization of Palestinian civil society, the COI claims that Israel instituted various measures to limit BDS, such as removing their funding and cutting business deals. By preventing BDS from acting freely, Israeli authorities were denying their supporters the right to freedom of expression, which is considered a human rights violation. As a response, the COI asserts that:
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice,” (Human Rights Council 53rd Session Report, pp 11)
Such statements blatantly support accounts of institutionalized antisemitism and violent resistance espoused by BDS leaders. There are numerous cases in which the BDS has voiced its antisemitic views. BDS co-founder and leader Omar Barghouti freely admits that BDS “opposes a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” In another, a BDS leader in South Africa stated, “BDS [...] will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine.” Lastly, Barghouti claimed that “B.D.S. treats resistance to what it sees as Israeli oppression, including by armed struggle, as a legitimate right. Asked if B.D.S. condemned the violence that targeted Israeli soldiers, he declined to comment” (Halbfinger et. al, Is B.D.S. Anti-Semitic? A Closer Look at the Boycott Israel Campaign).
BDS’ opposition to a Jewish state in Israel’s borders is not hidden. They openly deny the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in the land of Israel and advocate against a peaceful solution. While every individual should have the right to criticize any institution and exercise his or her freedom of expression, there is a difference between disagreement and encouraging human rights crimes. BDS clearly legitimizes terrorism and harm to innocent Israeli civilians as a means to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
To add fuel to the fire, the COI commissioners have explicitly shared similar views in interviews and sessions. Navi Pillay, the chief commissioner, has spent a large portion of her career fighting Israel, from lobbying governments to boycott Israel to creating the “Sanction Apartheid Israel” petition. On numerous occasions, Pillay has affirmed her support for BDS, such as “I hope that the Palestinian struggle to end colonization gains this kind of momentum, especially in the civilian campaign of BDS, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” at a conference in South Africa (November 29, 2017). Furthermore, Miloon Kothari, one of three commissioners of the COI, stated outright in the session, “States want to [...] correctly uphold the rights of the Ukrainians to resist, and we want to see the same standards applied to the case of Israel and Palestine.” In short, just as the Ukrainians use armed resistance and violence against Russia, so should the Palestinians. Violence is an encouraged response (3rd Meeting 53rd Session of Human Rights Council).
By confirming BDS as a legitimate protest organization, the UNHRC supports both human rights violations and violence as a means to an end. They support the continuation of conflict, not peace, and are actively making the world a more dangerous place for the Jewish people.
As a Jewish student studying human rights in university, I am deeply disappointed in the COI’s report and frightened by its precedent. Firstly, one of the most important lessons of higher education is to never rely on one narrative. Every conflict has multiple angles, but ignoring basic facts detracts from the truth. Highlighting the Israeli perspective is just as crucial to progress as highlighting the Palestinian one, and peace can only emerge through mutual recognition.
Secondly, this statement arrives at a dangerous time for the Jewish people, as antisemitism has slowly crept back into all sectors of our society. Many of my peers have been alienated for their assumed pro-Israel opinions after simply expressing their Jewish identities. Not only do individuals fear expressing their opinions on Israel, but the environment no longer allows them to be open about being Jewish. By giving the green light to BDS, the COI contributes to “removing [...] civil-society actors from the public space to stop their activities, silencing their voices and punishing them, and often also deterring others,” the exact environment the UNHRC claims Israeli authorities wrongfully create for Palestinians (Human Rights Council 53rd Session Report pp 20).
As a path forward, the UNHRC COI must condemn BDS for crossing the line from free speech to antisemitism. By drawing this line, the UNHRC can simultaneously protect the freedom of expression, as well as the Jewish people. Second, the UNHRC must recognize the terrorism enacted by Palestinian civilians and leadership. If they assert that Israeli violence is a human rights crime, they must at least recognize that it exists on the other side, let alone criticize it.
The only path to upholding human rights is to escape emotional narrative, present challenging issues from either side and hold both sides accountable for their actions. It is crucial to call out Israel when they commit crimes, just as criticism is warranted for any democracy, but displaying biased, one-sided evidence only inhibits progress and perpetuates the harmful, decades-long conflict. Every innocent Palestinian and Israeli equally deserves fair treatment from their governments and international institutions, and hiding the truth prevents human rights for all.
By Molly Goldstein - JIJ Intern
What will come of the recent escalation in the West Bank?
Last week, rockets were fired from Jenin, in the West Bank, toward Israel for the first time in 18 years. This week, Israel launched its biggest operation in the West Bank in decades. Tension and violence are escalating between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank, but what is the cause, and what does this mean in the larger question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
The Israeli military operation in Jenin is a counter-terrorism campaign that is mainly a response to a string of terrorist attacks in recent weeks. On June 19, Israel launched a raid in Jenin in search of several Palestinian terrorists planning attacks in Israel, and they were quickly met with armed resistance (Lynfield, “Israeli Forces launch raid in Jenin”).
A day after this, on June 20, two Palestinians killed four Israelis at a settlement near Nablus, in the West Bank. Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which operates out of Gaza, claimed responsibility for the gunmen (Gritten, Four Israelis killed by Palestinian gunmen”).
Four days later, on June 24, another terrorist, claimed to be a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, opened fire on Israeli soldiers at the major checkpoint connecting Ramallah and East Jerusalem (Fabian, “Shooting at checkpoint near Jerusalem”). The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is the military wing of Fatah, a Palestinian political group which lost the only election, in 2006, to Hamas but still has power in the West Bank.
Now, this week, after mounting tensions in the region, Israel has launched its biggest operation in the West Bank in two decades. Israel has announced that this counter-terrorism operation is to destabilize terrorist groups in the West Bank which have become too comfortable and too dangerous.
The operation has involved numerous drone strikes and an armed brigade on the ground, targeting terrorist hot spots in Jenin and in the refugee camp in the city. Israel has claimed that this operation is not aimed at taking and holding territory (Mckernan, “Biggest West Bank incursion in 20 years”), but to disable terrorists from carrying out attacks on Israel.
These recent terrorist attacks, and the Israeli response, is a result of decades of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The two have never been able to agree on borders or on coexistence, sparking several wars and many operations. This recent violence is an extension of the historic conflict, but it is influenced by modern issues, and it is being fought between complex parties.
The Palestinians launch terrorist attacks against Israel because they do not want the Jewish state to exist in the land they view as theirs. Several of the groups that hold power and operate in Palestinian land are not interested in a political solution, and often refuse to negotiate with Israel. The groups responsible for the recent attacks, mainly Hamas and Fatah, both have military wings that operate in the West Bank, and specifically in Jenin.
The groups receive much of their funding from Iran and call for radical Israeli cessions to achieve peace. Hamas wants Israel to fall back to the pre-1967 borders, they want to grant all Palestinians the right of return, and they want what is now Israel to become an Islamic state. Of course, these demands are impossible, and they are used as an excuse for violence.
Since Israel, obviously, refuses to cooperate with Palestinian demands, terrorist groups have been able to grow and operate in Palestinian land. Terrorist groups have found a safe haven in the West Bank, and specifically in Jenin, and the most recent Israeli operation shows that Israel refuses to allow terrorists to operate in the region. If Palestinian authorities continue to foster these terrorist groups, Israel may continue to launch operations against them, escalating the conflict between the parties.
This operation, the biggest in twenty years, may be a sign of more to come between Israel, the Palestinian groups in the West Bank, and the Palestinians across the rest of the region.
By Ethan Wenger – JIJ Intern
Unraveling the Trio: Understanding the Complexities of Saudi Arabia's Relationship with Israel, and the United States
When the Abraham Accords were signed in 2020, a key country was missing from the deal: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By not signing the Accords, Saudi Arabia has kept its point of leverage in its negotiations with the United States and with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Saudi Arabia recognizes the power they hold in the Middle East, and they want to get the most from both the United States and Israel before they agree to normalize relations with the Jewish state.
Each combination of the three-sided relationship between Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia must be understood to grasp what it will take for Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel.
First, it is important to understand the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Historically, the two states have been enemies. The Saudis voted against the United Nations Resolution 181, also known as the Partition Plan for Palestine, they have sent troops to fight the Israelis in several wars, and they have consistently supported the Palestinians in their efforts against Israel.
For one, the Saudis support the Palestinians in their fight for the land that currently belongs to Israel. In order for Saudi Arabia to make peace with Israel, the Saudis want Israel to adopt the Arab Peace Initiative (API). The API calls for Israel to pull out of territories gained in the 1967 war, for Israel to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, and for Israel to solve the Palestinian refugee issue (“Arab Peace Initiative”). In this regard, “solving” the Palestinian refugee issue would mean losing Israel’s identity as the only Jewish state.
If Israel agrees to these conditions, then Saudi Arabia may move to normalize relations with them. But Israel cannot adopt these conditions, for they would be ceding valuable defensive holdings and giving too much to the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia is using the Palestinians as leverage in the negotiations because they want an Arab-controlled Israel, and “the API regards the Arab-Israel normalization as the reward for solving the Israel-Palestinian dispute (Teller Abraham Accords: Saudi Arabia is still not budging).
Next, it is important to understand the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The Abraham Accords were mediated by the United States, and Saudi Arabia has not signed the peace treaty because they wanted more from the Americans. In order to achieve peace, Prince Mohammed bin Salman “has told both Israeli and American officials that he wants Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as the major regional force he believes it is by resuming arms sales halted last fall and by offering the kind of security commitment it extends to close allies” (Traub, Netanyahu Has Drawn a Saudi-U.S Road Map).
Saudi Arabia wants to be on the good side of the American military, and the Americans have their priorities as well. The United States is intent on preventing Iran from creating its own nuclear weapons, and it would also prefer Saudi Arabia to be the dominant Middle Eastern state over Iran. With this, Saudi Arabia laid their claims on the table in recent talks with America. They want the U.S to support Saudi Arabia’s goal of building their own nuclear weapons; they want an American promise to defend Saudi Arabia in times of war, and they want the U.S to grant them special status as a major non-NATO ally (Nissenbaum, et al., Saudi Arabia Seeks U.S Security Pledges).
Again, these are steep demands by the Saudis. The United States does not want to support a nuclear Saudi Arabia, as this would lead to a nuclear arms race between them and Iran, which would turn into a disastrous situation. They also do not want to formally recognize Saudi Arabia as an ally, which would rope them into any future Middle Eastern conflicts.
The last relationship to understand in this trio is between the United States and Israel. Israel wants the United States to create peace with Saudi Arabia to further protect its position as a stable state in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is one of the most important countries not at peace with Israel, and an agreement between the two states would further solidify Israel’s place in the Middle East.
While the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran is not part of the trio negotiating peace, it is equally important as the others. For decades, the two states have battled over dominance in the Middle East. This has resulted in proxy warfare between the states, as in the Syrian Civil War and in the Yemeni Civil War. After years of tension, diplomacy between the states has become a recent possibility. In March, the leaders of the two states agreed to restore ties in agreement mediated by China. In this agreement, they said they will affirm “the respect for the sovereignty of states and the on-interference in internal affairs of states” (Gadzo, “Changing Global Order”). In a statement released by Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia and Iran reached “an agreement to resume diplomatic relations between them and re-open their embassies and missions” (“Joint Trilateral Statement”). While Saudi Arabia and Iran are still battling for Middle Eastern dominance, tensions between the two are softening while diplomacy is rising.
Despite Israel’s hope that the United States will strike peace with Saudi Arabia, the Saudi demands are too much for the Americans. The United States would not want to be forced to protect Saudi Arabia in times of war, and they certainly do not want the Saudis to have nuclear weapons. Israel and Saudi Arabia cannot achieve peace themselves, as well, because the Saudi claims for a sovereign Palestine are impossible for Israel to accept. As of now, the demands by the Saudis are too high, and unless they cede some of them, official peace will not be achieved.
By Ethan Wenger – JIJ Intern
Unraveling the Trio: Understanding the Complexities of Saudi Arabia's Relationship with Israel, and the United States
When the Abraham Accords were signed in 2020, a key country was missing from the deal: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By not signing the Accords, Saudi Arabia has kept its point of leverage in its negotiations with the United States and with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Saudi Arabia recognizes the power they hold in the Middle East, and they want to get the most from both the United States and Israel before they agree to normalize relations with the Jewish state.
Each combination of the three-sided relationship between Israel, the United States, and Saudi Arabia must be understood to grasp what it will take for Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel.
First, it is important to understand the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Historically, the two states have been enemies. The Saudis voted against the United Nations Resolution 181, also known as the Partition Plan for Palestine, they have sent troops to fight the Israelis in several wars, and they have consistently supported the Palestinians in their efforts against Israel.
For one, the Saudis support the Palestinians in their fight for the land that currently belongs to Israel. In order for Saudi Arabia to make peace with Israel, the Saudis want Israel to adopt the Arab Peace Initiative (API). The API calls for Israel to pull out of territories gained in the 1967 war, for Israel to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, and for Israel to solve the Palestinian refugee issue (“Arab Peace Initiative”). In this regard, “solving” the Palestinian refugee issue would mean losing Israel’s identity as the only Jewish state.
If Israel agrees to these conditions, then Saudi Arabia may move to normalize relations with them. But Israel cannot adopt these conditions, for they would be ceding valuable defensive holdings and giving too much to the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia is using the Palestinians as leverage in the negotiations because they want an Arab-controlled Israel, and “the API regards the Arab-Israel normalization as the reward for solving the Israel-Palestinian dispute (Teller Abraham Accords: Saudi Arabia is still not budging).
Next, it is important to understand the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The Abraham Accords were mediated by the United States, and Saudi Arabia has not signed the peace treaty because they wanted more from the Americans. In order to achieve peace, Prince Mohammed bin Salman “has told both Israeli and American officials that he wants Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as the major regional force he believes it is by resuming arms sales halted last fall and by offering the kind of security commitment it extends to close allies” (Traub, Netanyahu Has Drawn a Saudi-U.S Road Map).
Saudi Arabia wants to be on the good side of the American military, and the Americans have their priorities as well. The United States is intent on preventing Iran from creating its own nuclear weapons, and it would also prefer Saudi Arabia to be the dominant Middle Eastern state over Iran. With this, Saudi Arabia laid their claims on the table in recent talks with America. They want the U.S to support Saudi Arabia’s goal of building their own nuclear weapons; they want an American promise to defend Saudi Arabia in times of war, and they want the U.S to grant them special status as a major non-NATO ally (Nissenbaum, et al., Saudi Arabia Seeks U.S Security Pledges).
Again, these are steep demands by the Saudis. The United States does not want to support a nuclear Saudi Arabia, as this would lead to a nuclear arms race between them and Iran, which would turn into a disastrous situation. They also do not want to formally recognize Saudi Arabia as an ally, which would rope them into any future Middle Eastern conflicts.
The last relationship to understand in this trio is between the United States and Israel. Israel wants the United States to create peace with Saudi Arabia to further protect its position as a stable state in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is one of the most important countries not at peace with Israel, and an agreement between the two states would further solidify Israel’s place in the Middle East.
While the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran is not part of the trio negotiating peace, it is equally important as the others. For decades, the two states have battled over dominance in the Middle East. This has resulted in proxy warfare between the states, as in the Syrian Civil War and in the Yemeni Civil War. After years of tension, diplomacy between the states has become a recent possibility. In March, the leaders of the two states agreed to restore ties in agreement mediated by China. In this agreement, they said they will affirm “the respect for the sovereignty of states and the on-interference in internal affairs of states” (Gadzo, “Changing Global Order”). In a statement released by Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia and Iran reached “an agreement to resume diplomatic relations between them and re-open their embassies and missions” (“Joint Trilateral Statement”). While Saudi Arabia and Iran are still battling for Middle Eastern dominance, tensions between the two are softening while diplomacy is rising.
Despite Israel’s hope that the United States will strike peace with Saudi Arabia, the Saudi demands are too much for the Americans. The United States would not want to be forced to protect Saudi Arabia in times of war, and they certainly do not want the Saudis to have nuclear weapons. Israel and Saudi Arabia cannot achieve peace themselves, as well, because the Saudi claims for a sovereign Palestine are impossible for Israel to accept. As of now, the demands by the Saudis are too high, and unless they cede some of them, official peace will not be achieved.
By Ethan Wenger – JIJ Intern
REPORT OF THE “STATE OF PALESTINE”
Jerusalem Institute of Justice written submission
TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
ON THE REPORT OF THE “STATE OF PALESTINE”
Executive Summary
Press this link for the full report
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice (JIJ) submitted a report to the Human Rights Committee of the UN regarding Palestinian adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). JIJ’s report exposes inadequate law enforcement, incitement to violence, and acts of torture and inhumane treatment by the Palestinian government, directly contradicting Palestinian claims of compliance with international law.
The Human Rights Committee is a United Nations treaty body comprised of 18 international law experts tasked with ensuring that countries adhere to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Countries self-report their adherence to the treaty to legitimize their sovereignty and prove their benevolence. The State of Palestine used its report to deceive the international community and attack the State of Israel while claiming they uphold International Law.
Article 2 of the ICCPR prohibits discrimination. However, the Palestinian educational curriculum promotes violence, excludes peace education, and fosters a biased narrative. Palestinian textbooks legitimize violence, glorify terrorists, erase Israel from maps, and demonize Israelis. This indoctrination of violence among children has long-lasting effects and obstructs peace initiatives, and it can manifest itself in acts of terror perpetrated by children and adults. In the State of Palestine, terrorists are rewarded with glory. Their families receive a payment if the terrorist dies or is arrested; the price increases corresponding to the severity of the crimes. Alongside monetary incentives, terrorists are treated like martyrs. Summer camps where Palestinian children are trained to fight Israel through acts of violence are named after killed terrorists.
Article 6 of the ICCPR safeguards the right to life. The use of human shields by the Palestinian authorities is a grave violation of international humanitarian law and breaches Article 6. This concerning practice has been observed in various conflicts, including Operation Protective Edge and the March of Return protests. Moreover, evidence suggests the concealment of rocket production facilities, armories, and combatants in or near residential areas, further jeopardizing civilians and disregarding international norms.
Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and cruel treatment. However, the Palestinian authorities have a significant gap between their legal framework and practical enforcement in preventing such acts. The Committee Against Torture (CAT) has expressed concerns over incidents of torture and mistreatment in custody, including the lack of confidentiality in complaint handling and the insufficient independence of investigation bodies. Former detainees’ testimonies provide clear evidence of inhumane treatment, torture, denial of rights, and various forms of abuse. Arbitrary arrests and torture are used against Palestinians exercising their fundamental rights, like peaceful protests or criticizing the regime. These abuses appear to stem from higher authorities’ directives. From 2016 to 2021, the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights received 4,279 claims. Palestinians commit these acts of torture onto Palestinians.
Article 20 prohibits war propaganda and advocacy for hatred; JIJ’s report highlights the notable discrepancy between the legal measures established by the Palestinian authorities and their practical enforcement. Despite legal restrictions, instances of incitement and hate speech persist. Palestinian television broadcasts content, such as the series “The Path of Sacrifice,” glorifying terrorists and their acts of terror. Social media platforms like TikTok and Telegram are also utilized to spread messages of hate and incitement, including simulated attacks by young children against Israeli soldiers. Palestinian leaders publicly encourage lone-wolf attacks and the procurement of weapons, fostering hatred instead of promoting peace. School textbooks and cultural events are utilized to propagate hate, as seen in a musical production featuring dancers in military attire glorifying combat against the perceived “enemy.”
Lastly, Article 24 safeguards the rights of children. Despite international laws protecting children’s vulnerability, Palestinian children continue to be recruited and involved in violent acts, including clashes, shootings, and stabbings. Organizations like Hamas run summer camps that promote aggression and hostility, jeopardizing these children’s safety, rights, and development. This perpetuates a culture of violence with far-reaching consequences for individuals and society.
Based on the information provided, JIJ recommends that the Human Rights Committee issue the following calls to the “State of Palestine”: expunge textbooks advocating violence and terrorism, adopt an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, cease financial support to terrorism, refrain from using human shields or concealing military targets in civilian areas, end the use of torture and ensure thorough investigations, discontinue the promotion of hatred and violence through media and social media platforms, and take measures to prevent the recruitment of children in hostilities and protect their rights. These recommendations aim to promote peace, tolerance, and the protection of human rights.
REPORT OF THE “STATE OF PALESTINE”
Jerusalem Institute of Justice written submission
TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
ON THE REPORT OF THE “STATE OF PALESTINE”
Executive Summary
Press this link for the full report
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice (JIJ) submitted a report to the Human Rights Committee of the UN regarding Palestinian adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). JIJ’s report exposes inadequate law enforcement, incitement to violence, and acts of torture and inhumane treatment by the Palestinian government, directly contradicting Palestinian claims of compliance with international law.
The Human Rights Committee is a United Nations treaty body comprised of 18 international law experts tasked with ensuring that countries adhere to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Countries self-report their adherence to the treaty to legitimize their sovereignty and prove their benevolence. The State of Palestine used its report to deceive the international community and attack the State of Israel while claiming they uphold International Law.
Article 2 of the ICCPR prohibits discrimination. However, the Palestinian educational curriculum promotes violence, excludes peace education, and fosters a biased narrative. Palestinian textbooks legitimize violence, glorify terrorists, erase Israel from maps, and demonize Israelis. This indoctrination of violence among children has long-lasting effects and obstructs peace initiatives, and it can manifest itself in acts of terror perpetrated by children and adults. In the State of Palestine, terrorists are rewarded with glory. Their families receive a payment if the terrorist dies or is arrested; the price increases corresponding to the severity of the crimes. Alongside monetary incentives, terrorists are treated like martyrs. Summer camps where Palestinian children are trained to fight Israel through acts of violence are named after killed terrorists.
Article 6 of the ICCPR safeguards the right to life. The use of human shields by the Palestinian authorities is a grave violation of international humanitarian law and breaches Article 6. This concerning practice has been observed in various conflicts, including Operation Protective Edge and the March of Return protests. Moreover, evidence suggests the concealment of rocket production facilities, armories, and combatants in or near residential areas, further jeopardizing civilians and disregarding international norms.
Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and cruel treatment. However, the Palestinian authorities have a significant gap between their legal framework and practical enforcement in preventing such acts. The Committee Against Torture (CAT) has expressed concerns over incidents of torture and mistreatment in custody, including the lack of confidentiality in complaint handling and the insufficient independence of investigation bodies. Former detainees’ testimonies provide clear evidence of inhumane treatment, torture, denial of rights, and various forms of abuse. Arbitrary arrests and torture are used against Palestinians exercising their fundamental rights, like peaceful protests or criticizing the regime. These abuses appear to stem from higher authorities’ directives. From 2016 to 2021, the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights received 4,279 claims. Palestinians commit these acts of torture onto Palestinians.
Article 20 prohibits war propaganda and advocacy for hatred; JIJ’s report highlights the notable discrepancy between the legal measures established by the Palestinian authorities and their practical enforcement. Despite legal restrictions, instances of incitement and hate speech persist. Palestinian television broadcasts content, such as the series “The Path of Sacrifice,” glorifying terrorists and their acts of terror. Social media platforms like TikTok and Telegram are also utilized to spread messages of hate and incitement, including simulated attacks by young children against Israeli soldiers. Palestinian leaders publicly encourage lone-wolf attacks and the procurement of weapons, fostering hatred instead of promoting peace. School textbooks and cultural events are utilized to propagate hate, as seen in a musical production featuring dancers in military attire glorifying combat against the perceived “enemy.”
Lastly, Article 24 safeguards the rights of children. Despite international laws protecting children’s vulnerability, Palestinian children continue to be recruited and involved in violent acts, including clashes, shootings, and stabbings. Organizations like Hamas run summer camps that promote aggression and hostility, jeopardizing these children’s safety, rights, and development. This perpetuates a culture of violence with far-reaching consequences for individuals and society.
Based on the information provided, JIJ recommends that the Human Rights Committee issue the following calls to the “State of Palestine”: expunge textbooks advocating violence and terrorism, adopt an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, cease financial support to terrorism, refrain from using human shields or concealing military targets in civilian areas, end the use of torture and ensure thorough investigations, discontinue the promotion of hatred and violence through media and social media platforms, and take measures to prevent the recruitment of children in hostilities and protect their rights. These recommendations aim to promote peace, tolerance, and the protection of human rights.
What Turkey’s Elections Mean for Israel
Turkey has elected Recep Tayyip Erdogan as their president in a runoff election. Erdogan, a member of the Justice and Development Party, or the AKP, ran on a promise to solve Turkey’s inflation problem, provide aid to those affected by the recent devastating earthquake, and solve the issue of Syrian refugees. Erdogan defeated Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, a member of the Republican People’s Party, by 52% to 48%. Kılıçdaroğlu ran on a hardline promise to rid Turkey of the refugees.
The AKP, Erdogan’s party, describes itself as a democratic conservative party that does not adhere to any religion. It is considered right-wing, with some experts labeling it far-right recently. Despite the party’s claims that it is not Islamic, most of its support comes from conservatives and Islamic people.
Kılıçdaroğlu’s party, the Republican People’s Party, is the other large political party in Turkey and is social democratic and Kemalist. The party follows six foundational principles, represented in the six arrows on their logo: republicanism, reformism, laicism, populism, nationalism, and statism. The party is more left-leaning socially, supporting LGBT and Women’s rights, alongside being pro-European and pro-NATO.
With Erdogan winning the election, Turkey can be expected to become more nationalist, conservative, and right-wing. The Turkish people have proven loyal to Erdogan, continuing to support him despite his government’s slow reaction to the earthquake and extreme inflation. They are dedicated to the Turkish leader who makes them proud to be Turkish, even though his policies and actions may not be politically in their best interest.
Now, what does this mean for Israel? The Turkish-Israeli relationship has a rocky history, even though Turkey was the first Muslim country to formalize relations with Israel in 1949. In the 2000s, there were several moments where the relationship faltered, stemming from instability in the Middle East and because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2017, Erdogan threatened to end its ties with Israel after the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In 2022, Erdogan met with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, the first time the two state leaders had met in 14 years.
Even though Erdogan has been in power for many years, his stance on Israel has switched several times. Today, he has a realistic view of Israel's importance in the Middle East as a strong military and economic point. He views Israel in terms of what they can do for Turkey, and since Israel is prosperous today, he wants to maintain a good relationship with the state. Also, Erdogan may see Israel as a connection to the United States, which Turkey must keep strong.
Erdogan cannot be trusted to behave in any consistent way towards Israel. If a relationship with Israel is good for Turkey, Erdogan will continue establishing diplomatic ties. But if the tide turns and Turkey can no longer extract value from Israel, Erdogan is more than capable of cutting ties and ending the relationship.
By Ethan Wenger - JIJ Intern
What Turkey’s Elections Mean for Israel
Turkey has elected Recep Tayyip Erdogan as their president in a runoff election. Erdogan, a member of the Justice and Development Party, or the AKP, ran on a promise to solve Turkey’s inflation problem, provide aid to those affected by the recent devastating earthquake, and solve the issue of Syrian refugees. Erdogan defeated Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, a member of the Republican People’s Party, by 52% to 48%. Kılıçdaroğlu ran on a hardline promise to rid Turkey of the refugees.
The AKP, Erdogan’s party, describes itself as a democratic conservative party that does not adhere to any religion. It is considered right-wing, with some experts labeling it far-right recently. Despite the party’s claims that it is not Islamic, most of its support comes from conservatives and Islamic people.
Kılıçdaroğlu’s party, the Republican People’s Party, is the other large political party in Turkey and is social democratic and Kemalist. The party follows six foundational principles, represented in the six arrows on their logo: republicanism, reformism, laicism, populism, nationalism, and statism. The party is more left-leaning socially, supporting LGBT and Women’s rights, alongside being pro-European and pro-NATO.
With Erdogan winning the election, Turkey can be expected to become more nationalist, conservative, and right-wing. The Turkish people have proven loyal to Erdogan, continuing to support him despite his government’s slow reaction to the earthquake and extreme inflation. They are dedicated to the Turkish leader who makes them proud to be Turkish, even though his policies and actions may not be politically in their best interest.
Now, what does this mean for Israel? The Turkish-Israeli relationship has a rocky history, even though Turkey was the first Muslim country to formalize relations with Israel in 1949. In the 2000s, there were several moments where the relationship faltered, stemming from instability in the Middle East and because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2017, Erdogan threatened to end its ties with Israel after the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In 2022, Erdogan met with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, the first time the two state leaders had met in 14 years.
Even though Erdogan has been in power for many years, his stance on Israel has switched several times. Today, he has a realistic view of Israel's importance in the Middle East as a strong military and economic point. He views Israel in terms of what they can do for Turkey, and since Israel is prosperous today, he wants to maintain a good relationship with the state. Also, Erdogan may see Israel as a connection to the United States, which Turkey must keep strong.
Erdogan cannot be trusted to behave in any consistent way towards Israel. If a relationship with Israel is good for Turkey, Erdogan will continue establishing diplomatic ties. But if the tide turns and Turkey can no longer extract value from Israel, Erdogan is more than capable of cutting ties and ending the relationship.
By Ethan Wenger - JIJ Intern
High Court of Justice, Challenging the Interior Ministry
|
|
|
High Court of Justice, Challenging the Interior Ministry
|
|
|