Human Rights – Informed Comment https://www.juancole.com Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:45:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.10 Closing Israeli Embassy does not Deter Ireland from Recognizing Palestine, Joining Genocide Case against Netanyahu Gov’t https://www.juancole.com/2024/12/recognizing-palestine-netanyahu.html Wed, 18 Dec 2024 05:15:37 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=222087 Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – The current Israeli Foreign Minister, Gideon Saar, is likely a war criminal by virtue of serving in the cabinet of a government pursuing a genocide.

He nevertheless had the gall to accuse the Prime Minister of Ireland of being a bigot, closing the Israeli embassy in Dublin on the grounds that he views virtually all Irish people as racists. Hmm. There must be a word for when you negatively stereotype an entire people…

Likely the move came in response to Ireland’s recent decision to join in South Africa’s complaint against Israel for genocide with the International Court of Justice. Even more dangerous for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and Gideon Saar, Ireland is seeking a more practicable definition of genocide. Current international legislation puts too much emphasis on intent and sets the bar for finding genocide so high it is almost impossible to meet.

Deputy Prime Minister Micheál Martin complained, “a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes genocide leads to a culture of impunity in which the protection of civilians is minimised.” He said the Irish view of the genocide convention is “broader” and prioritizes “the protection of civilian life.”

Some things about Saar should be remembered. In his youth he was a member of the far right Tehiya Party and he actively protested the 1982 Israeli withdrawal from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula as a result of the Camp David peace accords. In other words, Saar has all his life held anti-Arab views and he wants to occupy and colonize the lands of his neighbors. The United Nations Charter, to which Israel is a signatory, forbids acquiring the territory of neighbors through aggressive war, but that was what Israel did in 1967 when it launched an invasion of Egypt, which had not militarily attacked it.

As Interior Minister, Saar rounded up African migrants in Israel and put them in a detention camp. He defended it and wanted to expand it. The camp was just for Africans. Hmm. There must be a word for when you target a particular racial group for collective punishment …

Saar opposed then President Trump’s “Deal of the Century” because it implied some form of a Palestinian state. Saar says Israel must remain the only state “from the river to the sea” (alert American university presidents, who seem to think this diction is racist). He firmly rejects any state for a Palestinian, insisting that they must remain stateless and under Israeli control forever. He says there can never be “two states for two peoples.” He wants to annex much of the Palestinian West Bank, a violation of international law. He considers Hebron (al-Khalil), a major Palestinian city in the Palestinian West Bank, to be part of Israel.

He said that Gaza “must be smaller” after the war, another advocacy of a war crime.

Let’s just imagine an American politician who wanted to occupy Manitoba or Tijuana militarily, who rounded up migrants and put them in camps, and who declared that there can be only one sovereign country in North America and it must be White. Those would be the US equivalents of Saar’s politics. Those politics, in our context, would be forthrightly characterized by everyone as racist.

It is one of the great ironies of our time that a man with these views can have the temerity to brand Irish President Michael D Higgins and Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Simon Harris racist bigots who are prejudiced against Jews.

Higgins gave as good as he got, saying “I think it’s very important to express, as president of Ireland, to say that the Irish people are antisemitic is a deep slander. To suggest because one criticises Prime Minister Netanyahu that one is antisemitic is such a gross defamation and slander.”


Juan Cole, “Pot’o’Gold,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v. 3, 2024

Higgins came to the same realization as everyone else who has been gaslighted by right-wing Zionists with their phony (and cynical) charges of Jew-hatred whenever anyone objects to Israeli war crimes:

“Originally… I put it down to lack of experience but I saw later that it was part of a pattern to damage Ireland.”

It is sort of like if families of victims murdered by mid-twentieth-century Vegas hit man Bugsy Siegel were accused of only complaining because they didn’t like Jews.

Higgins insisted that Ireland “cannot be knocked off our principle[d] support of international law.” He pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the one who has broken international law. [The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.]

The Irish president pointed out that the Israeli government is currently violating “the sovereignty of three of his neighbours.” That would be Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. If Saar had his way it would be four, and would include Egypt.

Higgins made the remarks as he accepted the credentials of the new Palestinian ambassador to Ireland. Ireland, Spain and Norway reacted to Israel’s Gaza genocide by recognizing the state of Palestine last May.

The Irish equivalent of The Onion, WW News, made up some amusing reactions. They had one person, asked about the departure of the Israeli embassy from Dublin, say, “Is this the first time the Israeli government has actually given up property?”

Another joke: “Since the embassy will be going spare, we can probably let Palestinian refugees move in?”*

—–

*Revised.

]]>
Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity? Amnesty Int’l’s Verdict on Israel’s War on Gaza https://www.juancole.com/2024/12/genocide-against-humanity.html Sun, 15 Dec 2024 05:06:10 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=222041 By Binoy Kampmark

( Middle East Monitor ) – It was bound to happen. With continuing operations in Gaza and increasingly violent acts against Palestinians in the occupied territories, human rights organisations are making progressively severe assessments of Israel’s warring cause. While the world awaits the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on whether Israel’s campaign, as argued by South Africa, amounts to genocide, Amnesty International has already reached its conclusions.

In a 296-page report sporting the ominous title “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman”, the human rights body, after considering the events in Gaza between October 2023 and July 2024, identified a “pattern of conduct” indicating genocidal intent. These included, among other things, persistent direct attacks on civilians and objects; “deliberately indiscriminate strikes over the nine-month period, wiping out entire families repeatedly launched at times when these strikes would result in high numbers of casualties”; the nature of the weapons used; the speed and scale of destruction to civilian objects and infrastructure (homes, shelters, health facilities, water and sanitation infrastructure, agricultural land); the use of bulldozing and controlled demolitions and the use of incomprehensible, misleading and arbitrary evacuation orders.

The report does much to focus on statements from the highest officials to the common soldiery to reveal the mental state necessary to reveal genocide. One hundred two statements made by members of the Knesset, government officials and high-ranking commanders: “Dehumanised Palestinians, or called for, or justified genocidal acts or other crimes under international law against them.” The report also examined 62 videos, audio recordings and photographs posted online featuring gleeful Israeli soldiers rejoicing in the: “Destruction of Gaza or the denial of essential services to people in Gaza, or celebrated the destruction of Palestinian homes, mosques, schools and universities, including through controlled demolitions, in some cases without apparent military necessity.”

From its alternative universe, the Israeli public relations machine drew from its own agitprop specialists, working on mangling the language of the report. The formula is familiar: attack the authors first, not their premises. “The deplorable and fanatical organisation Amnesty International has once again produced a fabricated response that is entirely based on lies,” came the howl from Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein.

Other methods of repudiation involve detaching Hamas and its war with Israel from any historical continuum, not least the fact that it was aided, supported and backed by Israel for years as a counter to Fatah in the West Bank. Isolating Hamas as a terrorist aberration also serves to treat it as alien, artificially foreign and not part of any resistance movement against suffocating Israeli occupation and strangulation. They, so goes this argument, are genocidal, and countering such a body can never be, by any stretch, genocidal. The pro-Israeli group NGO Monitor abides by this line of reasoning, calling allegations of genocide against Israel: “A reversal of the actual and clearly established intent of Hamas and its allies (including its patron, Iran) to wipe Israel off the map.”

Israel’s closest ally and sponsor, the US, proved predictable in rejecting the findings while still claiming to respect the humanitarian line. The US State Department’s principal deputy spokesperson, Vedant Patel, expressed disagreement with: “The conclusions of such a report. We had said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded.” Patel did, however, pay lip service to the: “Vital role that civil society organisations like Amnesty International and human rights groups and NGOs play in providing information and analysis as it relates to Gaza and what’s going on.” Vital, but only up to a point.

Far less guarded assessments can be found in the US pro-Israeli chatter sphere. These follow the usual pattern. Orde Kittrie, senior fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a name that can only imply that crimes committed in such a cause are bound to be justifiable, offers a neat illustration. Amnesty, he argues: “Systematically and repeatedly mischaracterises both the facts and the law.” Kittrie suggests his own mischaracterisation by parroting the Israel Defense Forces’ line that Hamas had: “Increased casualty counts by illegally using Palestinian civilian shields and by hiding weapons and war fighters in and below homes, hospitals, mosques, and other buildings.” This conveniently ignores the point that the numbers are not necessarily proof of genocidal intent, though it helps.


“Crimes against Humanity,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

The report also notes that, even in the face of such tactics by Hamas, Israel was still: “Obligated to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and avoid attacks that would be indiscriminate or disproportionate.”

Amnesty International’s report is yet another addition to the gloomy literature on the subject. Human Rights Watch, in November, pointed to violations of the laws of war, crimes against humanity and the provisional measures of the ICJ issued urging Israel to abide by the obligations imposed by the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948. The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem stated in no uncertain terms in October that: “Israel intends to forcibly displace northern Gaza’s residents by committing some of the gravest crimes under the laws of war.”

Battling over the designation of whether a campaign is genocidal can act as a distraction, a field of quibbles for paper-pushing pedants. The “specific intent” in proof must be unequivocally demonstrated and beyond any other reasonable inference. A smokescreen is thereby deployed that risks masking the broader ambit of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But no amount of pedantry and disagreement can arrest the sense that Israel’s lethal conduct, whatever threshold it may reach in international law, is directed at destroying not merely Palestinian life but any worthwhile sense of viable sovereignty. Amnesty Israel, while rejecting the central claim of the parent organisation’s report, did make one concession: the country’s brutal response following 7 October, 2023: “May amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.”

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Via Middle East Monitor

]]>
Israel Committing War Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing in N. Gaza: Former Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon https://www.juancole.com/2024/12/committing-cleansing-minister.html Mon, 02 Dec 2024 05:06:00 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=221824 ( Middle East Monitor ) – Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon accused the army on Sunday of committing war crimes in the northern Gaza Strip and attempting to hide these crimes from the public, Anadolu Agency reports.

“I speak on behalf of the commanders who serve in northern Gaza. There are war crimes being committed there,” Ya’alon told the Israeli public broadcaster KAN.

“IDF (army) soldiers are putting their lives at risk and will be subject to lawsuits in the International Criminal Court,” he said.

“I have to warn about what is happening there (in northern Gaza) and what they are trying to hide from us, where they are committing war crimes.”

On Saturday, the former defense minister accused Israel of carrying out “ethnic cleansing” in northern Gaza, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of leading the country to “ruin.”

“I take responsibility for what I said about ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza,” Ya’alon said.

He also criticized far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s call for the displacement of Gaza’s population.

“Smotrich is proud of the opportunity to reduce Gaza’s population by half,” he said. “What do you call that? He has no moral issue with killing two million Gazans. We were once a democratic state.”

Last month, Smotrich had called for the reoccupation of Gaza and suggested reducing its population by half through encouraging what he calls the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians from the territory.

Several Israeli ministers have called for re-occupying Gaza and reducing its Palestinian population by encouraging what they term as voluntary migration amid Tel Aviv’s deadly onslaught on the enclave.

Since Oct. 5, Israel has launched a large-scale ground operation in northern Gaza to allegedly prevent Palestinian resistance group Hamas from regrouping. Palestinians, however, accuse Israel of seeking to occupy the area and forcibly displace its residents.

Since then, no humanitarian aid, including food, medicine, and fuel, was allowed into the area, leaving most of the population there on the verge of imminent famine.

More than 2,300 people have since been killed, according to Palestinian health authorities.

The onslaught was the latest episode in Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip that has killed nearly 44,400 people, mostly women and children, since Oct. 7, 2023.

On Nov. 21, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its deadly war on Gaza.

READ: Over 415,000 displaced Gazans sheltering in UN schools: UNRWA

Via Middle East Monitor

Creative Commons LicenseThis work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

——

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

Middle East Eye: “Israel ‘ethnically cleansing’ north Gaza says former Israeli defence minister”

]]>
Cross-Border Refuges: Cyclical Displacement between Lebanon and Syria https://www.juancole.com/2024/10/refuges-cyclical-displacement.html Sat, 19 Oct 2024 04:02:13 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=221062 By Jasmin Lilian Diab, Lebanese American University | –

(The Conversation) – The escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah since September 2024, and Israel’s bombing of civilian areas across Lebanon, have unleashed a profound humanitarian disaster.

The mass displacement of over 1 million people, including Lebanese citizens, migrant workers and Syrian and Palestinian refugees, has created a crisis within Lebanon. Yet an equally significant phenomenon is occurring away from Lebanon’s southern border with Israel: the movement of people who have been displaced within Lebanon into Syria.

An estimated 400,000 Lebanese and Syrians have reportedly fled into Syria through overcrowded border crossings.

Not to be confused with return, this movement represents a reversal of the refugee flow that followed the descent of Syria into civil war in 2011. It is also emblematic of a broader pattern of cyclical displacement crises in the region.

The complex and intertwined histories of Lebanon and Syria – where each has at various points been a refuge for citizens of the other – challenge the simple binaries often associated with the refugee experience.

The exchange of roles between Lebanon and Syria highlights not only the fragility of regional stability but the fluidity of displacement – and the deeper implications that cross-border movement has on the sociopolitical dynamics of both countries.

A history of reciprocal refuge

The relationship between Lebanon and Syria has long been complex, oscillating between cooperation and tension. Despite Syria’s official withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005 after decades as an occupying force, the two countries remain connected due to shared borders, economic ties and security concerns. Cooperation exists in areas such as trade, but there is significant tension, especially over the presence of over 1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon.

Yet, throughout their modern histories, one of the most enduring bonds has been the shared experiences of displacement and refuge, dating back to Lebanon’s civil war. From 1975 to 1990, thousands of Lebanese fled to Syria to escape the sectarian-driven conflict that engulfed their homeland.

The post-war period, however, was marked by a shift in the dynamics between the two countries. The 2005 withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon marked a new chapter in their relations.

Tensions rose as Lebanon sought to rebuild and assert its sovereignty after nearly 30 years of Syrian occupation. Yet, the region’s tendency for upheaval soon saw the roles reversed again decades later, when an estimated 180,000 Lebanese took refuge in Syria during the 2006 July war.

With the onset of the Syrian civil war in 2011, it was Lebanon’s turn to serve as a refuge. By 2015, 1 million Syrians fleeing violence made the journey into Lebanon.

Despite being one of the 44 countries never to have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, Lebanon is the country hosting the largest number of refugees per capita globally.

Because Lebanon didn’t sign the convention, it doesn’t formally recognize refugee status, which gives the country what it views as more control over its refugee policies. While Lebanon receives humanitarian support from the United Nations’ refugee agency, refugees remain in a precarious legal status, with limited rights.

For many Lebanese, this most recent influx of fleeing Syrian refugees has rekindled memories of their own displacement, while for others, it has fueled anti-refugee sentiments.

Bouncing between 2 war-torn countries

With the latest escalation of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, history is again repeating itself. Lebanese citizens, primarily from Hezbollah strongholds in South Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley, are seeking refuge in Syria, a country still grappling with its own economic collapse, violence and internal strife.

While the conflict on Lebanese territory has gone on for more than a year, movements into Syria only picked up in late September 2024 as people have become more desperate to flee.

As one displaced person forced to flee from Beirut explained to me: “Syria was certainly not a ‘better’ option than Lebanon six months ago, but in the last week, since the attacks on Beirut and political assassinations, Syria is safer – despite everything it is going through. That’s how unsafe we feel in Beirut – we are bouncing between one war-torn country and another.”

Implications for refugee-host dynamics

The cyclical nature of displacement between Lebanon and Syria overturns the prevailing political narrative of host-refugee dynamics being fixed and unidirectional.

Syrian displacement to Lebanon has been portrayed by some Lebanese politicians as one-directional. This appears to be in order to frame Syrian refugees as the sole recipients of aid – as opposed to Lebanese citizens – as well as burdens on Lebanon.

When displacement occurs in both directions, however, this narrative begins to break down.

Syrian refugees who once sought safety in Lebanon now see their home country as a safer haven – albeit a fragile and temporary one. Meanwhile, Lebanese citizens face the same kinds of vulnerability and desperation that their Syrian counterparts experienced over the past decade.

Importantly, testimonies from those who are making the trip from their ‘temporary’ home in Lebanon back to Syria highlight that these movements should not be mistaken for return. Rather, they are in themselves a temporary solution.

As one Syrian who had fled his Lebanese home explained to me: “No, I am not returning. I am rather leaving one foot in Lebanon and one in Syria. Syria is in no way a safe place. As men, we are at risk of arrest and forced conscription. However, Lebanon is momentarily, at this point in history, much less safe. We do this assessment week by week. I sent my wife and my children first. I will follow.”

For their part, internally displaced Lebanese entering into Syria insist that these movements are “absolutely temporary.” One told me: “Syria is not foreign to us. It feels close and familiar. But most importantly, it feels temporary and is the right proximity to Lebanon. As soon as things calm down we will come back to our homes. Many of us have nothing to go back to, but even in this case, we will not remain in Syria.”

The strain of displacement

Both Lebanon and Syria are, in many ways, ill-equipped to handle the new wave of displacement.

By 2023, Lebanon’s economic collapse had driven 80% of its population into poverty, making it nearly impossible to absorb the additional strain of mass internal displacement.

Government paralysis, compounded by political deadlock, leaves internally displaced people with little to no state support, mostly relying on aid and community networks to survive.

Syria, though in the position of “host” in this current migratory flow, is similarly constrained. The country’s infrastructure remains devastated from more than a decade of civil war. Basic services are stretched thin, and the economy has not recovered. Humanitarian organizations coordinating the response are working amid overextended resources and dwindling support.

A region in perpetual chaos

As the armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah escalates, the displacement crisis in Lebanon and Syria will, I fear, likely worsen.

The recent wave of Syrian refugees and Lebanese into Syria reveals the cyclical nature of refuge in the region. Ultimately, the ongoing displacement crisis in Lebanon and Syria serves as a reminder that refuge is often temporary, contingent on the shifting geopolitics of the region.

The histories of these two countries, where both have served as havens for the other’s displaced populations, underscore the complexity of displacement in the Middle East.

The fact that Lebanese citizens are now seeking shelter in Syria, a country from which over 1 million refugees fled just over a decade ago, underscores the volatility of regional displacement patterns. It also raises critical questions about the sustainability of international refugee systems that too often rely on static, one-directional models of migration and don’t account for the fluid and often reversible nature of displacement.The Conversation

Jasmin Lilian Diab, Assistant Professor of Migration Studies; Director of the Institute for Migration Studies, Lebanese American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

]]>
The Gaza Crisis and the End of Human Rights: The Failure of International Law https://www.juancole.com/2024/10/crisis-failure-international.html Tue, 08 Oct 2024 04:15:31 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=220879 Exeter (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) – As the Israeli attacks against Gaza have continued to rage, now spilling into Lebanon, a year of unspeakable violence has raised persistent questions about the efficacy of international law and global governance. Israel’s ongoing military actions in Palestine and the devastating toll on civilian lives. In the face of these flagrant violations of international law, from the Geneva Conventions to humanitarian rules meant to safeguard civilians, the world watches in a state of paralysis. The impotence of the United Nations (UN) and other international bodies calls into question whether global institutions are equipped to prevent such tragedies or hold aggressors accountable. The answer is clear: international law and organizations have failed.

A Year of Violence: A Tragedy for Palestine

For over a year, the Israeli occupation authorities have pursued increasingly aggressive military operations in Gaza and the West Bank. Thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, with entire neighborhoods razed, hospitals bombed, and essential infrastructure destroyed. The blockade of Gaza has deepened, leaving millions without access to necessities such as adequate water, food, and medical care. This is not just warfare; it is the systematic destruction of a people -— genocide, according to many scholars and human rights organizations.

What is perhaps most disheartening is the international community’s response — or lack thereof. Despite widespread documentation of war crimes, including targeting civilians, collective punishment, and disproportionate use of force, there has been no meaningful intervention. Israel’s actions flagrantly violate international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians and calls for the protection of those in occupied territories. Yet, condemnation from global institutions has been largely symbolic, devoid of enforcement or consequences.

Lebanon: The Conflict Expands

Now, as Israel extends its military campaign into Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah, the crisis has escalated into a regional conflict. The Lebanese civilian population, already struggling under economic collapse and political instability, now faces the terrifying prospect of attacks. As with Gaza and the West Bank, civilians are caught in the crossfire, and international law once again appears impotent in the face of aggression.

The expansion of conflict raises broader geopolitical concerns. The Middle East has long been a powder keg, and Israel’s unchecked military actions risk pulling the region into greater chaos. Yet, despite these dire consequences, the international community remains largely passive, offering only calls for restraint and diplomacy, which ring hollow in the absence of real accountability.

The Collapse of International Law

This ongoing crisis exposes the deep flaws within the international legal system. Israel’s continued breaches of international humanitarian law, from illegal settlements to disproportionate military force, challenge the very foundation of the post-World War II order. International law is designed to prevent such atrocities, yet when its mechanisms fail to hold powerful actors accountable, it becomes a dead letter.

The role of international organizations, particularly the United Nations, is central to this failure. The UN, founded to prevent the horrors of war and promote human rights, has become a symbol of ineffectiveness. UN resolutions condemning Israeli actions have been met with vetoes by powerful member states, most notably the United States, rendering the institution powerless. Year after year, the Security Council has been paralyzed, and while the UN General Assembly passes resolutions condemning the violence, these carry no legal weight.

The UN Secretary-General’s recent statements, calling for ceasefires and peace negotiations, are admirable but fall far short of addressing the root problem: the lack of enforcement. If international law cannot be enforced against powerful states, particularly when geopolitical interests are involved, it loses credibility in the eyes of the world. On the one hand, Israel has declared the UN Secretary-General as “persona non grata.” Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz claimed that Guterres, whom he described as anti-Israel, ‘supports terrorists, rapists, and murderers.’

In a written statement released by the Foreign Ministry, it was reported that Guterres was declared ‘persona non grata’ for not explicitly condemning the Iranian missile attack on Israel. ‘No one who cannot unequivocally condemn Iran’s vile attack on Israel deserves to set foot on Israeli soil,’ Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in a statement, claiming that Guterres, whom he described as anti-Israel, ‘supports terrorists, rapists, and murderers.’ Katz also argued that Guterres stands with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and now Iran, which he described as ‘the mother of global terrorism,’ and said that Guterres will go down in UN history as a ‘black stain.’ As we can see, Israel demands not only substantial support from individual states but also knee-jerk support from international organizations.

The Failure of Political Will

The problem, however, extends beyond institutional failures. At its core, the crisis reflects a lack of political will among world leaders to prioritize human rights and justice over strategic alliances and national interests. Israel’s position as a close ally of the United States and other Western powers shields it from meaningful consequences. This political reality undermines international law, creating a world where rules apply only to the weak, while the powerful operate with impunity. As public trust in international organizations erodes, so does the belief in the effectiveness of international law. This erosion has long-term consequences, not only for the Palestinian people but for global stability. If the world allows the precedent of unchecked violence and lawlessness to continue, other conflicts may follow, and other authoritarian regimes may exploit the international system’s weaknesses.
Where Do We Go from Here?

The current situation demands more than empty rhetoric and non-binding resolutions. If international law is to remain a force for justice, it must be enforced consistently, without regard to political alliances. This requires a fundamental overhaul of global institutions like the UN, which must become more democratic and less beholden to the vetoes of powerful nations. International courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), must be empowered to investigate and prosecute war crimes without political interference. The world cannot afford to stand idly by while a humanitarian catastrophe unfolds in Palestine and now threatens to engulf Lebanon. Global leaders must rise above their national interests and act in the name of justice, not only for the sake of the Palestinian people but for the integrity of international law itself. The time for decisive action is now, and the world must not let another year of violence and impunity pass.

Erosion of Public Trust

International law, particularly humanitarian law, is designed to protect human rights, prevent atrocities, and promote peace and justice on a global scale. Organizations like the United Nations (UN), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and various international treaties are supposed to provide mechanisms for accountability. However, when these institutions are unable—or unwilling—to enforce their rules, public trust in them erodes.

That Israel can attack Palestinians, routinely violating international law without consequence, sends a message to the global public that these laws are impotent. The inability to hold powerful states accountable creates the perception that international law is applied selectively, undermining its legitimacy. People lose faith in these institutions when they see that global powers can act with impunity, leading to cynicism about the entire international order. This erosion of trust can be deeply damaging. Citizens around the world may start to believe that international organizations are incapable of protecting human rights or negotiating an end to wars. The loss of confidence in these bodies weakens their authority, making it harder for them to mediate future conflicts, provide humanitarian aid, or broker peace agreements.

A Global Crisis for Humanity

When international law fails, it is not just the immediate victims of conflict who suffer. The breakdown of these systems can lead to a broader global crisis for humanity. The unchecked violation of human rights and international humanitarian law contributes to a cycle of violence, displacement, and instability that affects millions. Refugee crises, for example, often stem from conflicts where international law is disregarded, forcing entire populations to flee their homes in search of safety. Moreover, when international organizations are unable to intervene effectively, it emboldens other states or actors to disregard international norms, setting a dangerous precedent. This can lead to a proliferation of conflicts and human rights abuses, as countries see that there are no real consequences for violating international law. The result is a global jungle where might makes right, and the rules meant to protect the vulnerable are ignored.


“Lawless,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / PS Express, 2024

In the long term, this instability can contribute to global crises, such as the rise of extremism, the collapse of states, and increased poverty and suffering. When people no longer believe that international law can protect them, they may turn to other, often more violent, forms of resistance or support authoritarian regimes that promise stability over justice. This creates a vicious cycle where international organizations lose their ability to intervene meaningfully, further eroding trust and exacerbating global instability.

Beyond the undeniable failure of institutions, courts, and international law, this situation sends a stark message to the world: if what is happening in Gaza and Lebanon were to happen to us, there would be no mechanism or institution to protect us. Perhaps this is the intended outcome — to make us feel utter despair, to break our spirit, and to compel us to bow to power. But it is precisely for this reason that we will continue to resist, to fight, and to defend human rights with as much resolve as the people of Gaza.

]]>
Protesting Wake Forest University’s Cancellation of a Lecture by Professor Rabab Abdelhadi https://www.juancole.com/2024/10/protesting-universitys-cancellation.html Wed, 02 Oct 2024 04:02:25 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=220778 Committee on Academic Freedom | Middle East Studies Association | –

Dear President Wente and Provost Gillespie:
 
We write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our concern about Wake Forest University’s decision to cancel a scheduled lecture by Professor Rabab Abdelhadi, who is currently director of San Francisco State University’s Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative. We regard Wake Forest’s action as a severe violation of the principles of academic freedom. 
MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the prestigious International Journal of Middle East Studies and has nearly 2,800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and outside of North America.
According to media reports, Professor Abdelhadi was scheduled to speak on 7 October 2024 at an event sponsored by five academic units at Wake Forest. After the event was announced, a number of campus organizations launched an online petition drive demanding that the university cancel it. Apparently bowing to pressure, the university cancelled the event. In an email message to the campus community announcing the decision, the two of you stated: “We have also made the conscious decision not to host events on this day that are inherently contentious and stand to stoke division in our campus community. We are living in complex times, and yet we remain hopeful about the future because of this caring community and our shared mission to serve humanity.”
Exercising caution about contention and “stoking division” may be a laudable goal, but for Wake Forest to cancel an academic event because some people object to an invited speaker’s perspective on an issue of public interest betrays the university’s avowed commitment to academic freedom and to the free and open exchange of ideas, principles which are fundamental to the integrity and mission of our institutions of higher education. Moreover, the contention and “division” which you seek to avoid – when thought of as healthy disagreement and debate among scholars and students – is a laudable goal in and of itself for a college or university. Whether or not everyone at Wake Forest agrees with Professor Abdelhadi’s opinions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, silencing her cannot be acceptable at an institution which claims to uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech.
In these fraught times, college and university leaders have a heightened responsibility to protect the freedom of speech and academic freedom of all members of their communities – and their invited guests. This country’s institutions of higher education should be places in which a broad range of perspectives can be expressed, debated and criticized without fear of defamation, harassment or termination. As MESA’s Board of Directors put it in a statement dated 18 December 2023: “We call on university leaders and administrations to affirmatively assert and protect the rights to academic freedom and freedom of speech on their campuses. We reaffirm that there can be no compromise of the right and ability of students, faculty, and staff at universities across North America (and elsewhere) to express their viewpoints free of harassment, intimidation, and threats to their livelihoods and safety.”
We therefore call on you to immediately reverse the decision to cancel Professor Abdelhadi’s lecture at Wake Forest. We further call on you to vigorously reaffirm your commitment to uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech at Wake Forest and to actively foster an atmosphere of free academic inquiry and discussion, including the unhindered right of faculty and invited guests of the campus community to express their political opinions in the public realm.

We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Aslı Ü. Bâli 
MESA President
Professor, Yale Law School
Laurie Brand
Chair, Committee on Academic Freedom
Professor Emerita, University of Southern California
]]>
Protesting Cornell University’s Suspension and threatened Deportation of graduate Student Momodou Taal for Protest https://www.juancole.com/2024/10/protesting-universitys-deportation.html Tue, 01 Oct 2024 04:06:51 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=220763 Committee on Academic Freedom | Middle East Studies Association | –

Dear Interim President Kotlikoff, Provost Bala, Dr. Lombardi and Ms. Liang:
We write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our extreme concern about your decision to temporarily suspend Cornell graduate student Momodou Taal, without proper due process, on the grounds of his alleged disruptive participation in a pro-Palestine campus protest. We are particularly concerned that, as a result of this callous and arbitrary decision, Mr. Taal, an international student attending Cornell on an F-1 visa, is facing immediate deportation, without adequate opportunity to defend himself against these allegations.
MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the prestigious International Journal of Middle East Studies and has nearly 2,800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and outside of North America.
Mr. Taal, who is an instructor at Cornell University as well as a graduate student, has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights. On 18 September 2024, along with approximately 100 other students, he participated in, and gave a short speech at, a demonstration outside of a career fair held at the university’s Statler Hotel. The demonstrators were protesting the presence on campus of defense contractors Boeing and L3Harris, whom they regarded as complicit in Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian population of Gaza. Video evidence from the protest shows that some students pushed through a police line to enter the job fair site, with others following. However, the footage also appears to show that Mr. Taal did not come into direct contact with the police line and entered the grounds only after access had been achieved by other students. Once inside, the students conducted a nonviolent demonstration which disrupted the job fair through chants and drumming, resulting in the fair being shut down. It is important to note that, according to his account, Mr. Taal was present in the hotel lobby for only a few minutes and left the protest early; we understand that he does not appear in any of the video footage documenting the protest inside the hotel.
On 23 September 2024 Interim President Michael I. Kotlikoff issued a statement condemning the student protestors for what he described as “highly disruptive and intentionally menacing behavior.” He claimed that demonstrators had violated university rules by pushing aside Cornell Police officers, forcibly entering the career fair site, creating excessive noise and disrupting display tables. He warned that the students involved would face immediate suspension or employment sanctions. However, of all the students who participated in the demonstration, Mr. Taal was reportedly the only one to receive a message directing him to report to Cornell’s Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. On the same day that the Interim President made his statement, Mr. Taal was informed of his temporary suspension, given a physical copy of a no-trespass order barring him from campus, and notified that his F-1 visa would be terminated. It is our understanding that he was not fully informed of the specific allegations against him or given a reasonable opportunity to respond to them. 
Mr. Taal appealed his suspension on 25 September 2024. One day later that appeal was rejected by Dr. Ryan Lombardi, Vice President of Student and Campus Life. We are deeply concerned about the apparent lack of a properly conducted formal investigation into the allegations against Mr. Taal, the denial of an adequate opportunity for him to respond to the allegations against him, Cornell’s failure to hold a disciplinary hearing before a full review panel and violations of Mr. Taal’s procedural rights under Cornell’s own policies. On 27 September 2024 Mr. Taal submitted a second, and as we understand it final, appeal to the Provost’s Office and is currently awaiting a response. We note that this is not the first time Mr. Taal has been specifically targeted for his pro-Palestinian activities: in April 2024 he was one of just four students threatened with suspension over involvement in a pro-Palestine encampment that involved hundreds of participants. 
We believe that there is good reason to conclude that Cornell University, by ignoring due process and arbitrarily suspending Mr. Taal, has violated its own Student Code of Conduct Procedures. Moreover, the university administration must have been aware that his suspension would result in the termination of his F-1 visa, subjecting him to deportation. We believe that the use of suspension resulting in deportation sets an extremely dangerous precedent and threatens the free speech rights and the academic freedom of Cornell’s students, faculty and staff. We also note that, as a member of Cornell Graduate Students United-UE, Mr. Taal is entitled to union representation in disciplinary matters, as outlined in the union’s Memorandum of Agreement with the university. Given that the union has asserted its right to bargain over the disciplining of Mr. Taal, your administration’s unilateral actions appear to violate this agreement.
Mr. Taal is a promising graduate student with an outstanding academic record. As a Black Muslim international student, he is among the most vulnerable ­members of Cornell’s student body and deserves, at a minimum, the same level of procedural protection and consideration that Cornell’s policies are supposed to afford to all its students. The university’s actions are an affront to its stated commitment to diversity and inclusion and to its Core Values, which emphasize “free and open inquiry and expression­­—tenets that underlie academic freedom—even of ideas some may consider wrong or offensive.” Moreover, by taking discriminatory disciplinary action against a marginalized student, without due process, the university’s actions are also likely to have a chilling effect on other members of the campus community – especially other racialized and international students – thereby undermining their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly and their academic freedom. In this context we call your attention to the statement issued by MESA’s board of directors and its Committee on Academic Freedom on 6 May 2024 which denounced actions by university leaders that delegitimize and repress campus advocacy opposing Israel’s war in Gaza.
We therefore join the Cornell chapter of the American Association of University Professors and the Cornell Graduate Student Union as well as many members of the Cornell community and the public in calling on you to immediately rescind the temporary suspension of Mr. Taal. We further urge Cornell University to refrain from arbitrary and draconian disciplinary measures against students, faculty and staff exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly, and their academic freedom, including by expressing their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
 
We look forward to your response.
 
Sincerely,
 
Aslı Ü. Bâli 
MESA President
Professor, Yale Law School
 
Laurie Brand
Chair, Committee on Academic Freedom
Professor Emerita, University of Southern California
]]>
Protesting the Firing of Tenured Professor Maura Finkelstein for Criticizing Zionism https://www.juancole.com/2024/09/protesting-finkelstein-criticizing.html Sat, 28 Sep 2024 04:06:44 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=220719 Committee on Academic Freedom | Middle East Studies Association | –

Dear President Harring, Provost Furge and Professor Dowd:

We write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our grave concern about the announcement by Muhlenberg College that it intends to terminate Dr. Maura Finkelstein, a tenured member of the college’s faculty, because of an Instagram post that she had reposted. Even if some people may find the post objectionable, we believe that Professor Finkelstein’s reposting is protected by the First Amendment and by the principles of academic freedom. It cannot reasonably be construed as a violation of Muhlenberg College’s equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policy or justify her termination.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the prestigious International Journal of Middle East Studies and has nearly 2,800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and outside of North America.

Dr. Finkelstein is a cultural anthropologist whose research has addressed multiple geographies and theoretical realms. Her first book, The Archive of Loss: Lively Ruination in Mill Land Mumbai, charted the experiences of textile mill workers in the city of Mumbai. She is currently at work on a second book about equine-assisted therapy. Her scholarship and pedagogy have also engaged a range of issues relating to Palestine/Israel; her teaching includes a course on Palestine and she has published peer-reviewed work on her experiences teaching this material.

In the aftermath of the 7 October 2023 assault on Israel, Professor Finkelstein was subjected to intense attacks as a result of the criticism of Israel and of Zionism that she expressed in published work, academic forums and social media posts. Among other things, a number of donors to and alumni of Muhlenberg College circulated a petition demanding her removal from her tenured position. In January 2024 Professor Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave after reposting someone else’s Instagram post which was critical of Zionism and Zionists. The Muhlenberg College administration subsequently claimed that Professor Finkelstein’s reposting had violated its equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policy.

An outside firm hired by the college to investigate the case determined that Professor Finkelstein’s Instagram post had not constituted a violation of college policy. However, an ad hoc committee appointed by Muhlenberg’s Title IX office subsequently reversed this determination, without specifying the grounds for its decision. In late May 2024 Professor Finkelstein was informed that the college intended to terminate her for cause, because her Instagram post allegedly “met the standard for online discrimination and harassment involving hateful speech. It was severe and objectively offensive, and it denies or limits the ability to participate in the College’s programs.” She has appealed and is awaiting the decision of the college’s Faculty, Personnel and Policies Committee.

We note that Muhlenberg College has declared that it “endorses the robust, stimulating and thought-provoking exchange of ideas, which requires in-depth and complex educational experiences as well as the space for divergent perspectives.” We further note that neither college policy nor federal law defines those who adhere to or advocate for particular political ideologies (such as Zionism) as members of legally protected classes. As we have pointed out elsewhere, critiques of Israeli policies or of Zionism must not be conflated with antisemitism, nor should expressions of political opinion be sanctioned.

In these fraught times, college and university leaders have a heightened responsibility to protect the freedom of speech and academic freedom of all members of their communities. This country’s institutions of higher education should be places in which a broad range of perspectives can be expressed, debated and criticized without fear of defamation, harassment or termination. As MESA’s Board of Directors put it in a statement dated 18 December 2023: “We call on university leaders and administrations to affirmatively assert and protect the rights to academic freedom and freedom of speech on their campuses. We reaffirm that there can be no compromise of the right and ability of students, faculty, and staff at universities across North America (and elsewhere) to express their viewpoints free of harassment, intimidation, and threats to their livelihoods and safety.”

We therefore call on you to immediately reverse the decision to terminate Professor Finkelstein and to publicly declare her exonerated of the charges brought against her. We further call on you to vigorously reaffirm your commitment to uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech at Muhlenberg and to actively foster an atmosphere of free academic inquiry and discussion, including the unhindered right of faculty and other members of the campus community to express their political opinions in the public realm.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Aslı Ü. Bâli
MESA President
Professor, Yale Law School

Laurie Brand
Chair, Committee on Academic Freedom
Professor Emerita, University of Southern California

]]>
USAID Concluded that Israel was Blocking Aid to Gaza; Antony Blinken Lied about it to Congress https://www.juancole.com/2024/09/concluded-blocking-congress.html Wed, 25 Sep 2024 04:02:09 +0000 https://www.juancole.com/?p=220683 By Brett Murphy | –

Blinken told Congress, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting” aid, even though the U.S. Agency for International Development and others had determined that Israel had broken the law.

(ProPublica ) – The U.S. government’s two foremost authorities on humanitarian assistance concluded this spring that Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza.

The U.S. Agency for International Development delivered its assessment to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s refugees bureau made its stance known to top diplomats in late April. Their conclusion was explosive because U.S. law requires the government to cut off weapons shipments to countries that prevent the delivery of U.S.-backed humanitarian aid. Israel has been largely dependent on American bombs and other weapons in Gaza since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.

But Blinken and the administration of President Joe Biden did not accept either finding. Days later, on May 10, Blinken delivered a carefully worded statement to Congress that said, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”

Prior to his report, USAID had sent Blinken a detailed 17-page memo on Israel’s conduct. The memo described instances of Israeli interference with aid efforts, including killing aid workers, razing agricultural structures, bombing ambulances and hospitals, sitting on supply depots and routinely turning away trucks full of food and medicine.

Lifesaving food was stockpiled less than 30 miles across the border in an Israeli port, including enough flour to feed about 1.5 million Palestinians for five months, according to the memo. But in February the Israeli government had prohibited the transfer of flour, saying its recipient was the United Nations’ Palestinian branch that had been accused of having ties with Hamas.

Separately, the head of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration had also determined that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid and that the Foreign Assistance Act should be triggered to freeze almost $830 million in taxpayer dollars earmarked for weapons and bombs to Israel, according to emails obtained by ProPublica.

The U.N. has declared a famine in parts of Gaza. The world’s leading independent panel of aid experts found that nearly half of the Palestinians in the enclave are struggling with hunger. Many go days without eating. Local authorities say dozens of children have starved to death — likely a significant undercount. Health care workers are battling a lack of immunizations compounded by a sanitation crisis. Last month, a little boy became Gaza’s first confirmed case of polio in 25 years.

The USAID officials wrote that because of Israel’s behavior, the U.S. should pause additional arms sales to the country. ProPublica obtained a copy of the agency’s April memo along with the list of evidence that the officials cited to back up their findings.

USAID, which is led by longtime diplomat Samantha Power, said the looming famine in Gaza was the result of Israel’s “arbitrary denial, restriction, and impediments of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” according to the memo. It also acknowledged Hamas had played a role in the humanitarian crisis. USAID, which receives overall policy guidance from the secretary of state, is an independent agency responsible for international development and disaster relief. The agency had for months tried and failed to deliver enough food and medicine to a starving and desperate Palestinian population.

It is, USAID concluded, “one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world.”

In response to detailed questions for this story, the State Department said that it had pressured the Israelis to increase the flow of aid. “As we made clear in May when [our] report was released, the US had deep concerns during the period since October 7 about action and inaction by Israel that contributed to a lack of sustained delivery of needed humanitarian assistance,” a spokesperson wrote. “Israel subsequently took steps to facilitate increased humanitarian access and aid flow into Gaza.”

Government experts and human rights advocates said while the State Department may have secured a number of important commitments from the Israelis, the level of aid going to Palestinians is as inadequate as when the two determinations were reached. “The implication that the humanitarian situation has markedly improved in Gaza is a farce,” said Scott Paul, an associate director at Oxfam. “The emergence of polio in the last couple months tells you all that you need to know.”

The USAID memo was an indication of a deep rift within the Biden administration on the issue of military aid to Israel. In March, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, sent Blinken a cable arguing that Israel’s war cabinet, which includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, should be trusted to facilitate aid shipments to the Palestinians.

Lew acknowledged that “other parts of the Israeli government have tried to impede the movement of [humanitarian assistance,]” according to a copy of his cable obtained by ProPublica. But he recommended continuing to provide military assistance because he had “assessed that Israel will not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede U.S. provided or supported” shipments of food and medicine.

Lew said Israeli officials regularly cite “overwhelming negative Israeli public opinion against” allowing aid to the Palestinians, “especially when Hamas seizes portions of it and when hostages remain in Gaza.” The Israeli government did not respond to a request for comment but has said in the past that it follows the laws of war, unlike Hamas.

In the months leading up to that cable, Lew had been told repeatedly about instances of the Israelis blocking humanitarian assistance, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the embassy operations but, like others quoted in this story, not authorized to speak about them. “No other nation has ever provided so much humanitarian assistance to their enemies,” Lew responded to subordinates at the time, according to two of the officials, who said the comments drew widespread consternation.

“That put people over the edge,” one of the officials told ProPublica. “He’d be a great spokesperson for the Israeli government.”

A second official said Lew had access to the same information as USAID leaders in Washington, in addition to evidence collected by the local State Department diplomats working in Jerusalem. “But his instincts are to defend Israel,” said a third official.

“Ambassador Lew has been at the forefront of the United States’ work to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance to Gaza, as well as diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would secure the release of hostages, alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, and bring an end to the conflict,” the State Department spokesperson wrote.

The question of whether Israel was impeding humanitarian aid has garnered widespread attention. Before Blinken’s statement to Congress, Reuters reported concerns from USAID about the death toll in Gaza, which now stands at about 42,000, and that some officials inside the State Department, including the refugees bureau, had warned him that the Israelis’ assurances were not credible. The existence of USAID’s memo, Lew’s cable and their broad conclusions were also previously reported.

But the full accounting of USAID’s evidence, the determination of the refugees bureau in April and the statements from experts at the embassy — along with Lew’s decision to undermine them — reveal new aspects of the striking split within the Biden administration and how the highest-ranking American diplomats have justified his policy of continuing to flood Israel with arms over the objections of their own experts.

Stacy Gilbert, a former senior civil military adviser in the refugees bureau who had been working on drafts of Blinken’s report to Congress, resigned over the language in the final version. “There is abundant evidence showing Israel is responsible for blocking aid,” she wrote in a statement shortly after leaving, which The Washington Post and other outlets reported on. “To deny this is absurd and shameful.

“That report and its flagrant untruths will haunt us.”

The State Department’s headquarters in Washington did not always welcome that kind of information from U.S. experts on the ground, according to a person familiar with the embassy operations. That was especially true when experts reported the small number of aid trucks being allowed in.

“A lot of times they would not accept it because it was lower than what the Israelis said,” the person told ProPublica. “The sentiment from Washington was, ‘We want to see the aid increasing because Israel told us it would.’”

While Israel has its own arms industry, the country relies heavily on American jets, bombs and other weapons in Gaza. Since October, the U.S. has shipped more than 50,000 tons of weaponry, which the Israeli military says has been “crucial for sustaining” the Israel Defense Forces’ “operational capabilities during the ongoing war.”

The U.S. gives the Israeli government about $3.8 billion every year as a baseline and significantly more during wartime — money the Israelis use to buy American-made bombs and equipment. Congress and the executive branch have imposed legal guardrails on how Israel and other partners can use that money.

One of them is the Foreign Assistance Act. The humanitarian aid portion of the law is known as 620I, which dates back to Turkey’s embargo of Armenia during the 1990s. That part of the law has never been widely implemented. But this year, advocacy groups and some Democrats in Congress brought it out of obscurity and called for Biden to use 620I to pressure the Israelis to allow aid freely into Gaza.

In response, the Biden administration announced a policy called the National Security Memorandum, or NSM-20, to require the State Department to vet Israel’s assurances about whether it was blocking aid and then report its findings to lawmakers. If Blinken determined the Israelis were not facilitating aid and were instead arbitrarily restricting it, then the government would be required by the law to halt military assistance.

Blinken submitted the agency’s official position on May 10, siding with Lew, which meant that the military support would continue.


“Blinken, Soup Nazi,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / IbisPaint / Clip2Comic, 2024

In a statement that same day, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., criticized the administration for choosing “to disregard the requirements of NSM-20.”

“Whether or not Israel is at this moment complying with international standards with respect to facilitating humanitarian assistance to desperate, starving citizens may be debatable,” Van Hollen said. “What is undeniable — for those who don’t look the other way — is that it has repeatedly violated those standards over the last 7 months.”

As of early March, at least 930 trucks full of food, medicine and other supplies were stuck in Egypt awaiting approval from the Israelis, according to USAID’s memo.

The officials wrote that the Israeli government frequently blocks aid by imposing bureaucratic delays. The Israelis took weeks or months to respond to humanitarian groups that had submitted specific items to be approved for passage past government checkpoints. Israel would then often deny those submissions outright or accept them some days but not others. The Israeli government “doesn’t provide justification, issues blanket rejections, or cites arbitrary factors for the denial of certain items,” the memo said.

Israeli officials told State Department attorneys that the Israeli government has “scaled up its security check capacity and asserted that it imposes no limits on the number of trucks that can be inspected and enter Gaza,” according to a separate memo sent to Blinken and obtained by ProPublica. Those officials blamed most of the holdups on the humanitarian groups for not having enough capacity to get food and medicine in. USAID and State Department experts who work directly with those groups say that is not true.

In separate emails obtained by ProPublica, aid officials identified items in trucks that were banned by the Israelis, including emergency shelter gear, solar lamps, cooking stoves and desalination kits, because they were deemed “dual use,” which means Hamas could co-opt the materials. Some of the trucks that were turned away had also been carrying American-funded items like hygiene kits, the emails show.

In its memo to Blinken, USAID also cited numerous publicly reported incidents in which aid facilities and workers were hit by Israeli airstrikes even sometimes after they had shared their locations with the IDF and received approval, a process known as “deconfliction.” The Israeli government has maintained that most of those incidents were mistakes.

USAID found the Israelis often promised to take adequate measures to prevent such incidents but frequently failed to follow through. On Nov. 18, for instance, a convoy of aid workers was trying to evacuate along a route assigned to them by the IDF. The convoy was denied permission to cross a military checkpoint — despite previous IDF authorization.

Then, while en route back to their facility, the IDF opened fire on the aid workers, killing two of them.

Inside the State Department and ahead of Blinken’s report to Congress, some of the agency’s highest-ranking officials had a separate exchange about whether Israel was blocking humanitarian aid. ProPublica obtained an email thread documenting the episode.

On April 17, a Department of Defense official reached out to Mira Resnick, a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department who has been described as the agency’s driving force behind arms sales to Israel and other partners this year. The official alerted Resnick to the fact that there was about $827 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars sitting in limbo.

Resnick turned to the Counselor of the State Department and said, “We need to be able to move the rest of the” financing so that Israel could pay off bills for past weapons purchases. The financing she referenced came from American tax dollars.

The counselor, one of the highest posts at the agency, agreed with Resnick. “I think we need to move these funds,” he wrote.

But there was a hurdle, according to the agency’s top attorney: All the relevant bureaus inside the State Department would need to sign off on and agree that Israel was not preventing humanitarian aid shipments. “The principal thing we would need to see is that no bureau currently assesses that the restriction in 620i is triggered,” Richard Visek, the agency’s acting legal adviser, wrote.

The bureaus started to fall in line. The Middle East and human rights divisions agreed and determined the law hadn’t been triggered, “in light of Netanyahu’s commitments and the steps Israel has announced so far,” while noting that they still have “significant concerns about Israeli actions.”

By April 25, all had signed off but one. The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration was the holdout. That was notable because the bureau had among the most firsthand knowledge of the situation after months of working closely with USAID and humanitarian groups to try to get food and medicine to the Palestinians.

“While we agree there have been positive steps on some commitments related to humanitarian assistance, we continue to assess that the facts on the ground indicate U.S. humanitarian assistance is being restricted,” an official in the bureau wrote to the group.

It was a potentially explosive stance to take. One of Resnick’s subordinates in the arms transfer bureau replied and asked for clarification: “Is PRM saying 620I has been triggered for Israel?”

Yes, replied Julieta Valls Noyes, its assistant secretary, that was indeed the bureau’s view. In her email, she cited a meeting from the previous day between Blinken’s deputy secretary and other top aides in the administration. All the bureaus on the email thread had provided talking points to the deputy secretary, including one that said Israel had “failed to meet most of its commitments to the president.” (None of these officials responded to a request for comment.)

But, after a series of in-person conversations, Valls Noyes backed down, according to a person familiar with the episode. When asked during a staff meeting later why she had punted on the issue, Valls Noyes replied, “There will be other opportunities,” the person said.

The financing appears to have ultimately gone through.

Less than two weeks later, Blinken delivered his report to Congress.

Do you have information about how the U.S. arms foreign partners? Contact Brett Murphy on Signal at 508-523-5195 or by email at brett.murphy@propublica.org.

Mariam Elba contributed research.

]]>