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
UNdermining women’s Rights
Hillary Clinton, at the time First Lady of the United States, famously proclaimed at the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women that “women’s rights are human rights.” Despite this declaration 23 years ago, the United Nations has a long way to go towards ensuring women’s rights are upheld across the world. Unfortunately, the current structure of the United Nations often obstructs women’s rights by favoring self-interested, geopolitical partisanship.
The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women is the body responsible for investigating and promoting gender equality. This organization focuses on issues of peace, violence against women, female political participation, and economic opportunity for women, among other areas. Member states can introduce and vote on resolutions, and are elected from different continents to ensure representation among distinct geographical regions.
In 2017, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, which oversees the Commission, elected Saudi Arabia to serve as a full member. Saudi Arabia’s place in the Commission on the Status of Women is notable because of its reputation as a country that regularly disregards women’s rights. The World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 138 out of 144 countries in terms of gender parity, highlighting the difference in opportunities afforded to men and women in the country. Saudi Arabian women are greatly underrepresented in political life, as there are no women serving on the High Court or Supreme Judicial Court. Furthermore, women’s testimonies are worth only half of a man’s in Saudi Arabian courts, posing legal challenges for women trying to defend their interests. The kingdom withheld the right to drive automobiles from its female citizens until 2018. Prior to this change in laws, it was the only country in the world with such a restriction. Given this context, Saudi Arabia’s membership in a commission meant to help women is not only ironic, but morally reprehensible.
The presence of Saudi Arabia in this committee serves a political purpose. Through its membership in the Commission on the Status of Women, Saudi Arabia affects public opinion and condemns its geopolitical enemies, thus directing international attention and criticism away from its own anti-women agenda. In 2018, Saudi Arabia supported a resolution on supporting and aiding Palestinian women, which largely criticized Israel’s occupational role in Gaza and the West Bank. While there is merit to these conclusions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far from the only instance of oppression against women in the Middle East region. However, this resolution was the only one focused on that region passed by the Commission on the Status of Women in 2018. In this manner, Saudi Arabia and partnering member states distract from the many other women’s rights abuses in the Middle East that they are responsible for.
Furthermore, the presence of member states in this body with such egregious women’s rights violations calls into question its legitimacy. If Saudi Arabia does not treat its female citizens with the equal rights and protections of its male citizens, what authority does it have to recognize and condemn similar abuses committed by other nations? How can such a council be trusted to resolve the very inequities that its members promote?
No country may have a perfect track record on women’s rights, but enabling a country that so clearly disregards its women to create policy on the topic is an affront towards the promotion of global gender equality. Of course, the gender imparities that women face globally, and the inherent flaws in the United Nations, are not resolved solely through the removal of Saudi Arabia from this commission. However, Saudi Arabia’s presence in this commission clearly does not advance the cause of women’s rights. Calling the United Nations’ methodology and authority into question is a necessary democratic means to ensure that all nations not protecting their female citizens are held accountable by this organization.
The United Nations serves a noble purpose in its mission statement to “work for the protection of all human rights for all people.” Such a commitment, however, is an empty promise given the United Nations’ support for noted women’s rights abusing nations, such as Saudi Arabia. Rather than empowering women, this institution often empowers women’s rights abusers. Criticism of the United Nations, and calling for greater accountability within the organization, protects the interests of women globally.
Deflection and Evasion: Human Rights in the Gulf
On March 15, 2006, the United Nations General Assembly established the United Nations Human Rights Council (hereafter UNHRC). This would replace the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which had been heavily criticized for admitting to its membership the repressive regimes of countries such as China, Zimbabwe, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
So how far has the Council progressed? Surely after the upheaval and rebranding of an institution that had stood since 1946, a new wave of human rights advocacy and legitimacy would sweep the 193-member state organization.
Along with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the trusted old guard Saudi Arabia continues to enjoy a seat at the table.
At a time where the US is reportedly considering withdrawing its membership of the UNHRC due to its criticism of Israel, it behooves one to consider how Israel’s human rights record compares to that of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE.
In regard to civil and political rights, otherwise termed as ‘the first wave' or 'first generation' of human rights, Israel boasts a significantly better record than that of its Gulf state counterparts. It does not practice the death penalty, with the last execution being that of Adolf Eichmann – the notorious Nazi convicted of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity – in 1962. It is home to a diverse group of competing political parties, ranging from religious Zionist parties such as the Jewish Home Party to explicitly anti-Zionist parties such as Balad.
By contrast, due to the varying degrees to which their legal systems incorporate Sharia Law, these three Gulf nations all retain the practice of the death penalty for crimes as serious as murder to those as minor and dubious as apostasy, adultery and sodomy (homosexuality). Between January 1 2016 and July 27 2016, Saudi Arabia executed 108 people. In 2016, Freedom House rated the Kingdom’s political rights a score of 3/40 and their civil liberties a score of 7/60. Saudi citizens face criminal prosecution for political dissent, and the ban on political parties has virtually eliminated any opposition to the monarchy’s decrees. The most notable case is that of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, who was sentenced to a flogging of 1000 lashes in 2014 for ‘insulting Islam’.
LGBT rights have rightly emerged as a preeminent concern for human rights activists. The Israeli legal system maintains strong protections for the rights of LGBT people. Consensual same-sex acts have been de facto legal since 1963 and formally legal since 1988. The concept of ‘sodomy’ has no legal validity or relevance within Israeli legal system. LGBT people are protected under the law from discrimination within society and the military, with violent crimes motivated by sexual orientation considered hate crimes and requiring double the punishment of regular violent crimes. Furthermore, same-sex couples are afforded extensive adoption rights.
The Gulf nations paint a very different picture of livability for LGBT people. Article 177 of the Dubai Penal Code states that consensual sodomy is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Along with the near-identical Qatari policy, these procedures almost seem lenient when compared to that of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom’s wahhabist ultra-conservatism views homosexuality as the ultimate deviancy, as well as what are perceived to be the related issues of transgender citizens and cross-dressing. The legal punishments for homosexual sex in Saudi Arabia include fines, prison sentences, floggings, chemical castration, torture and execution – often by beheading.
The Israeli-Gulf divide also occurs along the lines of women’s rights. Israel ranks 18th in the world in terms of gender equality according to the United Nations Development Program. Women are protected from discrimination under the law and have enjoyed prominent positions within Israeli society such as Prime Minister, President of the Supreme Court, Chairperson of the Reserve Bank and Major General. The Knesset’s Committee on the Status of Women has as its stated objectives: the prevention of discrimination, combatting violence against women, and promoting equality in politics, lifecycle events and education.
Conversely, women’s rights in Saudi Arabia are abysmal by international standards. The country ranked 134th globally in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report of 2015. Saudi law requires all women to have a male guardian in public and as such are not permitted to shop, conduct business or drive without a male companion. Saudi authorities also mandate draconian laws regarding the modesty of women’s clothing. Failure to comply with these laws can incur harassment from the Mutaween (religious police). Polygamy remains legal as does the marrying of child brides. In court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women. Domestic violence is a common occurrence, as is the denial of property and employment rights to women.
Although Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state, it also guarantees freedom of religion to all its citizens. Christian, Muslim and Baha’i communities have jurisdiction over their own adherents in matters of marriage, divorce and burial. Synagogues, mosques, churches and khalwats (Druze prayer houses) can operate without fear of government intrusion or closure. Importantly, Israeli law does not prohibit leaving a religious group, otherwise known as ‘apostasy’.
In Qatar, the idea of religious freedom is at best illusory for its Muslim population. Under Articles 245-260 of the Qatari Law 11 of 2004, blasphemy and other insults or challenges to the doctrines of Islam are punishable by prison sentences, whilst the offence of apostasy is punishable by the death penalty. Apostasy is similarly punished in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia retains the more archaic beliefs of the Gulf trio, by prosecuting people for sorcery and witchcraft. It also tasks the Mutaween with enforcing Sharia law throughout the country. This involves reporting unrelated males and females who socialize, enforcing strict Islamic dress codes, enforcing Muslim dietary requirements, prohibiting people from proselytizing other religions and banning consumer products deemed to be un-Islamic.
As the nations of the world vote on 15 new members to the UNHRC at the convening of the General Assembly in September, two concerns should be at the forefront of their minds. Firstly, human rights are important and adherence to their norms requires constant introspection and critical self-examination. Their inalienability is an equalizer for people across the globe, be they rich or poor, black or white. They serve to allow people, among other things, the freedom to speak their mind and guard the dignity and liberty to which they are naturally entitled. Secondly, having a UNHRC characterized by hypocrisy ultimately undermines their principled mandate. Allowing repressive regimes like Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia to deflect their horrendous records onto Israel is an exercise in evasion. Israel is an imperfect democracy; elevated by morality yet burdened with deficiencies. Nonetheless, we should set the bar higher than floggings, chemical castrations and beheadings.
The Qatar Crisis: A Human Rights Issue Too
The recent decision by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain to sever diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar has been dominantly viewed through the lens of its political and security implications alongside Qatar’s alleged support for terrorist organizations. However, there are often-overlooked aspects of the commonly-called blockade that are worthy of a greater amount of consideration: human rights and international law. While there are other human rights challenges in Qatar, this article seeks to examine the effects of the recent crisis.
One component of the break in diplomatic ties between these GCC nations was a demand by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain for Qatari citizens to depart their countries within two weeks or face unspecified consequences. Similarly, these governments urged their citizens residing in Qatar to return home by this same deadline or potentially risk losing citizenship. Such a move may not sound extremely disruptive on face, but the action is nowhere near benign.
Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain – experience an extremely high level of economic and social integration with one another. In the 2001 Economic Agreement Between the GCC States, these nations made a binding commitment for GCC citizens to “be accorded, in any Member States, the same treatment accorded to its own citizens, without differentiation or discrimination, in all economic activities.” This meant that citizens of any GCC country had equal rights to purchase property, obtain healthcare, insurance, education, and other social services in any Gulf country they chose to reside in. In addition, citizens of Gulf states experienced freedom of movement – oft-considered a basic human right – to allow them to travel without restriction among the Gulf states.
As a result of this close integration, many individuals chose to pursue their education, find jobs, or start businesses in countries other than the one in which they held citizenship. It was customary to travel between the states regularly, especially given the frequency of flights between the nations. But, after the onset of the recent crisis, both Qataris in the condemning nations and citizens of those three countries in Qatar faced interruptions of their basic lifestyle choices. The high level of interdependence between these GCC states underscores the gravity of the recent actions taken, especially in the face of GCC agreements that ensure equal treatment to all GCC-nation citizens. The individuals affected by these measures number at least 13,000, according to the Qatar National Human Rights Committee.
These individuals could either depart from their current country of residence without any prospect of returning – leaving behind the life they made and likely losing their job – or they could stay, running the risk of losing citizenship in their native country. Neither option sounds particularly enticing, especially once various complications are considered. Students in university could be forced to leave prior to finishing exams. Patients undergoing medical treatment could have to choose whether to proceed with treatment or face the consequences of noncompliance with the mandates.
For mixed-nationality families, these challenges are particularly acute. Children with different citizenships than one of their parents could face separation, regardless of the age of the child. For families impacted by divorce or death of a parent, there could be even more complications. Although the blockade countries claim that special attention would be paid to such cases, little materialization of any altered standards has appeared.
Not only were citizens of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE required to return to their native countries, but there were also new standards instituted regarding “sympathizing” with Qatar. If any individual publicly makes a statement sympathy towards Qatar, whether it be on social media or in public, they could be liable for heavy fines or even imprisonment. In the UAE, for example, sympathizing with Qatar could result in imprisonment for up to 15 years or a fine of up to 500,000 dirhams.
In total, the blockade measures violate multiple international agreements, whether widely accepted standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or more specific agreements that apply to the countries involved, like the Arab Charter on Human Rights. The violations are similar across the various treaties; however, problems regarding enforcement arise given that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain are not parties to many of the basic UN human rights treaties. The fact that these nations have not ratified such treaties itself should not be ignored, but for the time being, it is more relevant to focus on the agreements that these nations are signatories to, such as the Arab Charter on Human Rights and the GCC Human Rights Declaration. Although currently lacking an effective enforcement mechanism like an Arab Court of Human Rights, the standards set forth in the Arab Charter on Human Rights articulate binding norms that Arab nations agreed to. Similarly, the GCC Human Rights Declaration lists a set of goals that GCC countries want to aspire to regarding human rights. At the bottom of the page is an organized list of the articles of each agreement that the current actions violate.
Not only do the actions directly implicate international standards, but there are also consequences for individuals’ daily lives that simply result from the break in diplomatic and economic connections between the nations. Trade ties between the GCC countries have been a primary factor in the success of their respective economies. As such, the break in economic associations has radically altered the way that Qatar supplies its population with necessary economic goods and services. Food imports have been shifted – away from Saudi Arabia – towards Turkey and Iran. Due to the quick switch in economic partners, a complete replacement of all the goods that used to flow in from Saudi Arabia has not been possible. As such, greater food imports from places like Turkey primarily supply large supermarkets in Doha, putting strain on smaller grocery stores. Deficits of products, combined with high prices, will challenge individuals in Qatar, especially low-income families and migrant workers. In the short-term, access to food will continue to be limited, hampering individuals’ abilities to fulfill basic needs. To better prevent such shortages and broader economic losses long-term, Qatar is likely to further increase economic cooperation with Iran and Turkey, but it is precisely this move that may deepen the extent of the crisis.
The blockade countries presented Qatar a list of demands that, when fulfilled, would result in reinstated cooperation. Prominently featured are pleas to “curb diplomatic ties with Iran” and to “immediately terminate the Turkish military presence currently in Qatar and end any joint military cooperation with Turkey inside of Qatar.” The blockade countries threaten that if the demands are not complied with by July 3, then the list of demands will no longer be valid. Meanwhile, Qatar – looking to fill the cooperative vacuum left behind by the withdrawal of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain – finds increasing incentives to work with Iran and Turkey. As a result, compromising on the demands made by the blockade countries will only prove to be more difficult as the crisis continues.
The risks of the crisis continuing for an extended period of are manifold. Qatar has sufficient financial resources and flexibility not to immediately cave into all of the demands, but it cannot last forever without the cooperation of the blockade countries. Already hit with losses recently due to low energy prices – impacting the profitability of its main industry, LNG – Qatar finds itself in a less prosperous position. Yet, the perceived importance of the issues at stake for both sides ensure that no country will easily succumb. As the crisis continues, families will continue to be divided and economies on both sides will continue to be hard hit, impacting the basic lives of individuals across these nations.
The human rights questions posed by the blockade are of extreme importance, and should not be ignored. Although Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE claim to be taking these actions to criticize Qatar’s support for terrorist organizations like Hamas, ending Qatar’s support for Hamas will not necessarily result in a more peaceful outcome. According to Haim Malka of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), weakened financing streams from Qatar could lead to fragmentation of Hamas, potentially opening the door to infighting and increased violence from terrorist groups vying for power in Gaza. Regardless of the eventual outcome on terrorist organizations, human rights are inalienable, a relevant consideration when making any diplomatic decision. Before the crisis continues for an extended period of time, it is essential for the human rights considerations to be dealt with.
International Agreement Violations:
Freedom of Belief and Expression
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 3 - “Each State party to the present Charter undertakes to ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the right to enjoy the rights and freedoms set forth herein, without distinction on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religious belief, opinion, thought, national or social origin, wealth, birth or physical or mental disability.”
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 32 – “The present Charter guarantees the right to information and to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any medium, regardless of geographical boundaries.”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 9 – “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and exercising such freedom is guaranteed insofar as it accords with Islamic Sharia law, public order and the regulations (laws) regulating this area.”
Freedom of Movement
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 26 – “ 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State party shall, within that territory, have the right to freedom of movement and to freely choose his residence in any part of that territory in conformity with the laws in force. 2. No State party may expel a person who does not hold its nationality but is lawfully in its territory, other than in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and after that person has been allowed to submit a petition to the competent authority, unless compelling reasons of national security preclude it. Collective expulsion is prohibited under all circumstances.”
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 27 – “ 1. No one may be arbitrarily or unlawfully prevented from leaving any country, including his own, nor prohibited from residing, or compelled to reside, in any part of that country. 2. No one may be exiled from his country or prohibited from returning thereto.”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 10 – “Freedom of movement, residence and departure is a right of every human being according to the regulations (law)”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 11 – “No one shall be deported from his country or prevented from entering it”
Protection of the Family
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Article 33 – “2. The State and society shall ensure the protection of the family, the strengthening of family ties, the protection of its members and the prohibition of all forms of violence or abuse in the relations among its members, and particularly against women and children. They shall also ensure the necessary protection and care for mothers, children, older persons and persons with special needs and shall provide adolescents and young persons with the best opportunities for physical and mental development. 3. The States parties shall take all necessary legislative, administrative and judicial measures to guarantee the protection, survival, development and well-being of the child in an atmosphere of freedom and dignity and shall ensure, in all cases, that the child's best interests are the basic criterion for all measures taken in his regard, whether the child is at risk of delinquency or is a juvenile offender.”
GCC Human Rights Declaration, Article 14 – “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, originally composed of a man and a woman, governed by religion, morals and patriotism; its entity and bonds are maintained and reinforced by religion. Motherhood, childhood and members of the family are protected by religion as well as the State and society against all forms of abuse and domestic violence.”