… on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Category: human rights violations

  • 20+ NGOs Condemn ‘Reckless’ Decision to Cut Off UNRWA Aid

    Spread the love

    Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished from Common Dreams under under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    United Nations workers and volunteers unload aid from a truck at a school housing displaced Palestinians on the 29th day of fighting between Israel and the armed Palestinian factions in Khan Yunis on November 8, 2023.  (Photo: Ahmed Zakot/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

    “Countries must reverse these funding suspensions, uphold their duties towards the Palestinian people, and scale up humanitarian assistance for civilians in dire need in Gaza and the region.”

    More than 20 humanitarian aid organizations on Monday condemned the decision by the United States and a growing list of nations to suspend funding for the United Nations agency that provides vital services to Palestinians suffering through a genocidal Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.

    Following Israeli claims—reportedly extracted from Palestinian prisoners in an interrogation regime rife with torture and abuse—that 12 of the more than 13,000 United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) workers in Gaza were involved in the October 7 Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel, the United States and nine other nations cut off funding to the largest humanitarian aid organization operating in the besieged coastal enclave.

    UNRWA has fired several employees in the wake of the Israeli allegations, while the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services, the world body’s highest investigative authority, has launched a probe of the matter.

    “We welcome UNRWA’s swift investigation into the alleged involvement of a small number of U.N. staff members in the October 7 attacks. We are shocked by the reckless decision to cut a lifeline for an entire population by some of the very countries that had called for aid in Gaza to be stepped up and for humanitarians to be protected while doing their job,” the 21 NGOs said in a statement.

    “This decision comes as the International Court of Justice ordered immediate and effective action to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza,” the groups continued, referring to last week’s ICJ interim ruling in a South African-led case that found Israel is “plausibly” perpetrating genocide. “The countries suspending funds risk further depriving Palestinians in the region of essential food, water, medical assistance and supplies, education, and protection.”

    “We urge donor states to reaffirm support for the vital work that UNRWA and its partners do to help Palestinians survive one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes of our times,” the statement added. “Countries must reverse these funding suspensions, uphold their duties towards the Palestinian people, and scale up humanitarian assistance for civilians in dire need in Gaza and the region.”

    According to UNRWA chief Phillipe Lazzarini, more than 2 million of Gaza’s 2.3 million people depend upon UNRWA for their “sheer survival.” With more than 90% of Gazans displaced by Israel’s bombardment and invasion, over 1 million Palestinians are living in UNRWA-run shelters. As Gaza teeters on the brink of famine and hundreds of thousands of its residents suffer infectious diseases, the agency is providing critical food, medicine, and healthcare. It also runs hundreds of schools in the strip.

    All this while working under relentless Israeli bombardment that’s sometimes targeted UNRWA convoys, schools, shelters, and other facilities. The agency says at least 152 of its employees have been killed by Israeli bombs and bullets since October 7. Overall, more than 26,600 Palestinians have been killed and over 65,300 others wounded during Israel’s 115-day onslaught, according to Gaza officials. Most of these casualties have been women and children.

    “We urge donor states to reaffirm support for the vital work that UNRWA and its partners do to help Palestinians survive one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes of our times.”

    This isn’t the first time the U.S. has suspended funding for UNRWA. The Trump administration did so in 2018, describing the agency as “irredeemably flawed.” In 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden restored funding for UNRWA as it reeled from a crisis caused largely by the loss of around $360 million in American financial contributions.

    U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday urged the Biden administration to “immediately” restore UNRWA funding, which came a day after U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said that while the alleged complicity of a few UNRWA employees in the October 7 attacks “must have consequences,” the “tens of thousands of men and women who work for UNRWA, many in some of the most dangerous situations for humanitarian workers, should not be penalized.”

    “The dire needs of the desperate populations they serve must be met,” he added.

    Helen Clark, a member of the Elders and a former prime minister of New Zealand, on Monday praised countries—including New Zealand, Norway, Spain, and Ireland—that “have shown a better approach” by continuing to financially support UNRWA.

    “Gazans cannot suffer further collective punishment through suspension of UNRWA funding,” Clark said on social media.

    Norway’s Representative Office to Palestine affirmed on social media that “the situation in Gaza is catastrophic, and UNRWA is the most important humanitarian organization there.”

    “Norway continues our support for the Palestinian people through UNRWA,” the office added. “International support for Palestine is needed now more than ever.”

    Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished from Common Dreams under under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

  • Human rights organisations demand weapons embargo to stop fuelling Gaza crisis

    Spread the love

    https://leftfootforward.org/2024/01/human-rights-organisations-demand-weapons-embargo-to-stop-fuelling-gaza-crisis/

    ‘All states have an obligation to prevent atrocity crimes and promote adherence to norms that protect civilians. The international community is long overdue to live up to these commitments.’

    Sixteen leading international human rights and humanitarian organisations have made a joint call to all UN Member States to stop fuelling the crisis in Gaza, to avert further loss of civilian life and humanitarian catastrophe.

    The aid coalition includes Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Save the Children. It is demanding an immediate halt on the transfer of weapons, parts and ammunition to Israel and Palestinian armed groups while there is a risk they are used to ‘commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law.’

    The United Nations’ Palestinian Refugee Agency has warned that around 1.7 million people have been displaced within Gaza. The Gaza Health Ministry says the Palestinian death toll from the conflict is over 25,700, most of which are women and children. Islamic Relief (IR) said the figures show that 4 percent of the population of Gaza was now dead or injured.

    Over 95 percent of Israel’s supply of weapons comes from the US. The UK, Italy and Germany also produce parts which are sold to Israel. The UK is home to Israeli weapon manufacturers, including Elbit Systems, which makes surveillance and armed drones. Both the UK and US administrations have been accused of playing a part in facilitating the destruction of Gaza.

    …

    https://leftfootforward.org/2024/01/human-rights-organisations-demand-weapons-embargo-to-stop-fuelling-gaza-crisis/

  • ICJ upholds South Africa’s case against Israel, orders measures to prevent genocide in Gaza

    Spread the love

    Original article by Tanupriya Singh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) licence.

    While the Court did not grant South Africa’s request for an immediate suspension of Israel’s military operations, it has ordered Israel take “all measures” to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza, including by its military

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled in favor of South Africa’s request for provisional measures in its case against Israel over the ongoing war on Gaza. The request is part of an application filed by Pretoria, accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    In a ruling issued on January 26, the Court determined that it had jurisdiction over the matter, and as such, rejected Israel’s request for the case to be dismissed.

    While reading Friday’s ruling, Judge Joan Donoghue reiterated that at the stage for the request for provisional measures, the court is not required to ascertain whether any violations of Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention have occurred, but whether the acts complained of “appear to be capable” of falling under its provisions.

    “In the court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention”, the ICJ’s order states.

    The Court also recognized that the Palestinians in Gaza formed a substantial part of the Palestinian people as a protected group under Article II of the Convention, which defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

    “The Court notes that the military operation being conducted by Israel following the attack of 7 October 2023 has resulted in a large number of deaths and injuries, as well as massive destruction of homes, forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.”

    Donaghue went on to cite statements by the UN humanitarian chief, Martin Griffiths, who had stated on January 5 that Gaza had “become a place of death and despair”, and that its people were witnessing “daily threats to their very existence.” She also quoted statements from the WHO, as well as the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) , Philippe Lazzarini, who stated on January 13 that the “clock is ticking fast towards famine.”

    The Court recognized the right of the Palestinian people to be protected from acts of genocide.

    Importantly, the ICJ took note of the statements made by senior Israeli officials — statements meticulously documented in Pretoria’s application as evidence of an intent to commit genocide.

    Donaghue read aloud Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration of the “complete siege of Gaza,” his reference to Palestinians as “human animals,” and his call to “eliminate everything.” Also mentioned were Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s remarks that there is “an entire nation out there that is responsible” and “we will fight until we break their backbone.”

    Noting that Israel’s military operations in Gaza strip were ongoing, quoting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the war would take “many more long months” — at a time when Palestinians did not have access to food, water, electricity, medicines or heating, as well as indications that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase— the Court stated that the “catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgment.”

    The Court further stated that the steps Israel had taken to address the conditions in Gaza, and the remarks by its Attorney General that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offense of incitement, were insufficient.

    Pending a final decision in the case, “the Court considers that there is an urgency…there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible…The court concludes…that the conditions required …for provisional measures are met.”

    The first provisional measure sought by South Africa was an immediate suspension of Israel’s military operations in and against Gaza. On January 25, Hamas had also stated that it would abide by a ceasefire if it was ordered by the ICJ, as long as Israel did the same.

    The ICJ in its order made no mention of this request, and as observers have highlighted, did not discuss military action, a ceasefire, or the question of self-defense— in its advisory opinion in 2004, the ICJ had determined that Israel could not claim this right in relation to a territory it was occupying.

    However, it has indicated a series of provisional measures, each approved with an overwhelming majority among the 17-judge-panel, which are binding in effect and place “international legal obligations” to the State Party to whom they are addressed — in this case, Israel.

    First, by 15 votes to 2, Israel must “take all measures within its powers to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of the Convention.” These acts include a) killing members of the group, b) causing serious bodily or mental harm” and c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part and d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

    Second, with 15 votes in favor, Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1. By 16 to 1 votes, Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to Palestinians in Gaza.

    Fourth, with 16 votes, Israel has been ordered to “take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life” in Gaza. By 15 to two votes, Israel must also take “effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence” related to allegations under the Genocide Convention. In its application, South Africa had also requested that Israel “shall not act to deny or otherwise restrict access by fact-finding missions, international mandates and other bodies to Gaza to assist in ensuring the preservation and retention of said evidence.”

    Finally, Israel has to submit a report to the ICJ on “all measures taken to give effect to this order” within one month as from the date of the order (January 26). This was approved with 15 votes in favor.

    Under the statute of the ICJ, it will now notify the UN Security Council of the provisional measures ordered. Given that the Court lacks an enforcement mechanism, questions remain on how these measures will be operationalized.

    Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Friday’s ruling by calling the charge of genocide as “false” and “outrageous,” adding that “Israel would continue to defend itself against Hamas.”

    Senior Hamas official, Sami Abu Zahri, told Reuters that the ruling was an “important development that contributes to isolating the occupation and exposing its crimes in Gaza. We call for compelling the occupation to implement the court’s decision.”

    The Palestinian foreign ministry stated that the ruling “breaks Israel’s entrenched culture of criminality and impunity, which has characterized its decades-long occupation, dispossession, persecution and apartheid in Palestine…Governments must ensure that they are not complicit in this genocide…This is now a binding legal obligation.”

    The Court’s ruling will raise significant questions of the obligations of other State Parties to the Genocide Convention.

    As South Africa noted in its statement on Friday, “Third States are now on notice of the existence of a serious risk of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. They must, therefore, also act independently and immediately to prevent genocide by Israel and to ensure that they are not themselves in violation of the Genocide Convention including by aiding or assisting in the commission of genocide.”

    “This necessarily imposes an obligation on all States to cease funding and facilitating Israel’s military actions, which are plausibly genocidal.”

    It further warned that “the veto power wielded by individual states [in the Security Council] cannot be permitted to thwart international justice, not least in light of the ever-worsening situation in Gaza brought about by Israel’s acts and omissions in violation of the Genocide Convention.”

    Original article by Tanupriya Singh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) licence.

  • When far-right ideas become mainstream, it’s people of colour who suffer

    Spread the love

    Original article by Shabna Begum republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    The Tories and Labour competing over hardline immigration policies only helps to mainstream far-right ideas

    Rishi Sunak conducts a press conference in December 2023  | James Manning (WPA Pool)/Getty Images

    Standing at a lectern with the familiar slogan, “STOP THE BOATS”, Rishi Sunak evoked the “will of the people” as the so-called Rwanda Bill made its fractious passage through the Commons last week.

    The prime minister’s summoning of “the people” to push through an inhumane and unpopular policy smacks of the misuse of populism that we have come to associate with this government. The insistence that stopping people seeking asylum is “an urgent national issue” deliberately ignores that the priority issues for the British public remain the cost of living and the NHS.

    We have seen both main political parties eagerly trading punches for the prize of who can appear most punitive on blocking people seeking asylum. Not only does this stale consensus manufacture a sense of crisis that is a distortion of public opinion, but it also pretends it has nothing to do with racism. And yet whether it’s warning about a “hurricane” or “invasion” of migrants and the failures of multiculturalism, or condemning Britain’s “immigration dependency”, the messaging relies on innuendo and euphemism that stoke racial tensions.

    The Runnymede Trust, where I am the interim co-CEO, has today published a report warning of the dangers of this rotten politics that helps mainstream far-right, racist political ideas. Political debate on immigration, based on racialised ideas of who is welcome and who belongs, has become the norm. Whether directly or indirectly, historic and contemporary migration policies are predicated on the exclusion of people of colour. As exemplified by the Windrush scandal, this cheap politics has a high cost – and it is people of colour, regardless of their citizenship status, who bear the ugly consequences.

    These toxic anti-migrant policies are coupled with a sustained assault on our democratic infrastructure. In 2022, the government passed the Elections Act, which made it a requirement that voters present ID at polling stations. There was strong opposition about the impact on people of colour. The first UK elections to use them – the May 2023 local elections – confirmed these fears. The Electoral Commission reported about 14,000 people were turned away, and that people of colour and disabled people were most likely to be impacted. The commission predicts 800,000 people could be blocked from voting at the next general election – an incredible price to pay when there were just six cases of voter fraud in 2019.

    And then of course there’s attacks on the right to protest. Last year’s Public Order Act introduced new and expanded stop and search powers in relation to protest-related ‘offences’. The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner was unequivocal that these powers were “disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organising or taking part in peaceful protests”. The Runnymede Trust, alongside many others, opposed the law, highlighting increased police powers would, as with all stop and search powers, be disproportionately used against people of colour, particularly Black men.

    It’s not just legislation, but also through rhetoric that politicians have persistently attacked the right to protest. Indeed, former home secretary Suella Braverman labelled pro-Palestine marches “hate marches” and compared them with wicked vexation to Black Lives Matter protests – both causes which have high levels of support among communities of colour.

    And dare I even mention the ‘culture war’ and the injuries it has inflicted on the strength of civil society? In recent years we have seen the vilification of organisations across the arts, heritage, charity sector and our higher education spaces. The targets have often been those that have dared to embark on progressive racial justice work, who have been demonised with the absurd inversion of the term ‘woke’.

    Whether it is through stacking boards with hand-picked ideologues, threatening funding sources, or personalised attacks on individuals, the government has led and encouraged unprecedented attacks on civil society institutions and created a chilling culture of fear, intimidation and self-censorship.

    The fact it is the likes of Braverman and her replacement James Cleverly – ministers of colour – who have designed and executed these policies, shows diversity at the top does not protect against racist impact, nor does it mean people in those positions won’t have divergent or indeed opposing political interests to those with whom they may share some points of affinity.

    The politics of representation may prioritise superficial visibility, but we mustn’t forget people in positions of power have always designed and inflicted policies that have harmed those they are deemed to share some interest with.

    As we prepare for the 2024 general election, we must act to stop the rot of our democracy. Pandering to far-right politics by creating a crisis around small boats and invoking the “will of the people” to implement punitive and racist policies while ignoring the needs of the very people they invoke is unacceptable. On every count, it is people of colour that lose.

    Original article by Shabna Begum republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

  • Priest, 73, among climate activists made to wear GPS tags for years

    Spread the love

    Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    Just Stop Oil member Tim Hewes has to lead church services with an ankle tag on – despite not yet having faced trial

    The 73-year-old priest has long taken part in direct action with other campaign groups including Insulate Britain, Extinction Rebellion and Christian Climate Action calling for climate justice  | Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images

    A 73-year-old priest accused of helping plan a climate protest on the M25 has been forced to lead church services while wearing a GPS ankle tag for two years.

    Tim Hewes, from Oxfordshire, is among at least ten members of Just Stop Oil who were given the tags despite not having been convicted of a crime. Hewes, who previously sewed his lips shut outside a newspaper office, is also barred from going on the M25 or taking part in any actions to oppose the climate crisis.

    On one occasion, Hewes said he was thrown into the back of a police van and locked up overnight after being accused of breaking his bail conditions because his ankle monitor failed to charge. He says the tag was faulty and he was released once the court realised.

    “Now if there’s a knock at the door, I think, well, it’s either the tag team or the police,” he told openDemocracy.

    “The difficulty with the GPS is that, although I don’t have a curfew, I’ve still got to sleep at home.

    “I asked my solicitor: ‘What if I want to go and see the dawn, or something like that?’ and she said: ‘Well, between 12 and five is probably about your limit.’ So, that would rule out midnight mass… Why should I not be able to do that? You know where I am.

    “We’re supposed to be able to protest… The perpetrators of real, serious harm in this country are actually in government. What are we supposed to do?”

    Hewes, who was speaking to openDemocracy in December and was in fact able to attend midnight mass without a hitch on Christmas Day, had been arrested in November 2022 and charged with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. He has worn the tag since January 2023 after being held on remand at Wandsworth Prison for six weeks, and has to keep it on until his trial begins in February 2025. Tags must be worn at all times for as long as the court decides.

    While he denies the charge, Hewes’s tag prohibits him from going on the M25 and taking part in or organising climate protests. Following previous action with other climate campaign groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Christian Climate Action, he says he has faced increasingly harsh treatment from the police and justice system.

    Hewes was arrested on a Sunday afternoon. He said he had just put his collar on as he prepared to take part in a church service when he looked out of the window and saw his garden “swarming with police”.

    “They shouted up: ‘If you don’t come down and open the door, we’re going to break it down now.’ And they got what they call a ‘big red key’, which is a euphemism for the battering ram. It was scary.”

    He added: “Sunday afternoon was just never the same for me.”

    Hewes said he was initially embarrassed to lead services with his tag on, and believes climate activists are being heavily criminalised in order to silence and discredit them.

    “Suella Braverman talked about Just Stop Oil in the same breath as terrorists,” he told openDemocracy. “That’s outrageous. We’re peaceful protesters. The climate crisis is an existential threat.”

    Braverman, the former home secretary who was forced out after inciting a far-right mob to storm the Cenotaph in November, referred to the activist group as “extremists” in 2022 and said they were “out of control” following a series of protests on the M25.

    Marcin Wawrzyn, 42 – who was arrested after 20 minutes of ‘slow marching’ with Just Stop Oil in November – told openDemocracy that being given a tag felt “unfair” and “disproportionate”.

    “It felt like a punishment and for what?” he said. “I was marching in the road – where else would you protest? The judges of ECHR say roads are the most appropriate places for protests and anything under 90 minutes cannot be seen as disruptive.”

    Mentally, it was harsh – I felt like a dog on a leash

    Wawrzyn was charged under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, which bans any act that “interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure”. He has pleaded not guilty, and his case is expected to begin in 2025.

    Under the conditions of his tag, Wawrzyn was prohibited from crossing the River Thames from his home in Wandsworth, south-west London, and from going into north London for a month. Though his tag has now been removed, he described feeling isolated.

    “Despite my work being in north London, I was excluded from my office for a month, which is something a court shouldn’t do. But that’s what happened to me. Mentally, it was harsh – I felt like a dog on a leash.

    “I felt detached and like I was prevented from having human contact with people I really care about.”

    Hewes agreed. “I’m a marked and tracked man,” he said. “It’s really frustrating. As activists, one of the things that helps our mental health is the fact that you are trying to do something, however feeble it might appear to other people.”

    Last month, Just Stop Oil wrote to the Met Police after the force claimed that policing the group’s protests cost almost £20m. Just Stop Oil said that “arresting non-violent grandmothers, teenagers, vicars, medics, engineers” was a “waste” of resources.

    But Wawrzyn added that campaigners have not been deterred by the crackdown. “The fact that the state reacts in such a way only emboldens us and gives us the assurance that they’re actually noticing what we’re doing and they are actively fighting us,” he said. “If anything, we’re galvanised and we’re drawing more and more people in.”

    Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.
    Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.