“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

This 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”

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.

(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.

(The Conversation) – The operation that used pagers and walkie-talkies to kill members of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah was ingenious – but was it legal?

Certainly, there are those who will argue that it was. That thinking goes like this: Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with rockets, and the pagers and radios purchased by Hezbollah could be expected to be used by the same people involved in decisions to send those missiles. As such, the killings, if carried out by Israel as is widely believed, would appear to be targeted and warranted. While some bystanders may die or be injured, they would likely be associated with Hezbollah, according to this line of thinking.

But that is not the right assessment, according to international law. Under law I have taught for over 40 years, hiding explosives in everyday objects makes them booby traps – and in almost every case, using a booby trap designed to kill is a crime.

Prohibited means of warfare

It is important to affirm that the acts that apparently led Israel to strike Hezbollah are also illegal under international law. In fact, Hezbollah, a nonstate armed group supported by Iran, has no right to use violence of any kind, let alone missile strikes targeting civilians in northern Israel.

Under international law, a nonstate actor gains the right to fight only if it is associated with a regular armed force of a sovereign state involved in armed conflict hostilities. And that is not the case with Hezbollah in Lebanon. This means each Hezbollah missile constitutes the commission of a serious crime.

But that fact does not give rise to any right of Israel to use booby traps in response.

A booby trap is defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the body charged with oversight and implementation of the Geneva Conventions and related treaties on the law of armed conflict, as a “harmless portable object” – but redesigned to contain explosive material. They are a prohibited means of warfare and are equally prohibited by law enforcement authorities.

“Booby Trap,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

In peacetime, police and other law authorities are restricted to using lethal force only in cases in which a life is immediately in danger. Carefully dismantling a device, adding explosives and sending them on to be used in homes or places of worship, for example, cannot be seen to be saving a life immediately.

And it is peacetime law that applies in Lebanon at this time. There is, under international law, no war currently taking place in Lebanon. Israel is involved in armed conflict hostilities in Gaza, not Lebanon. The intermittent attacks across the Lebanon-Israel border do not constitute hostilities as defined under international law.

Growing list of violations

Even if hostilities were occurring between Israel and Lebanon, as might well happen, Israel would have no right to use booby traps. In hostilities, an adversary’s fighters may be intentionally targeted and killed. Ambushes and other clandestine operations are permitted. And the lives of civilians may be lost in doing so.

But weaponizing an object used by civilians is strictly prohibited in wartime. It is a form of “killing treacherously,” meaning with deception. It is the opposite of carrying weapons openly, as required by the venerable treaty the Hague Convention Annex of 1907 – which is still binding law for all engaged in warfare.

Despite being clearly illegal for over a hundred years, the use of booby traps persists. During the terrorist violence that plagued Northern Ireland for decades, the anti-British Irish Republican Army deployed booby traps, in particular car bombs. Members of the group were regularly prosecuted under U.K. law. Members of the United States military would be prosecuted too if they decided to create and use a booby trap.

The use of booby traps adds to Israel’s growing list of post-Oct. 7 violations of international law. The country itself was the victim of a brutal criminal act by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. And international law permits significant, robust responses to such a crime. But it also sets strict conditions and limits – and it clearly holds that the use of booby traps goes beyond those limits.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of Law and International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

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

There is no cure for polio once it is contracted. Its victims can be paralyzed or can die.

Without a ceasefire, UNICEF points out, you cannot get the families to line up their children to receive the vaccine by mouth. Some 95% of the infants in Gaza need to have the vaccine administered to prevent an outbreak, and they need two doses. Without a ceasefire, the aid workers cannot even safely move around to make arrangements for giving out the doses. The aid organizations want to use Deir al-Balah to store and distribute the vaccines, but the Israeli army has just once again ordered everyone out of it and has invaded it, risking destroying the remaining medical infrastructure there. Some 250,000 Palestinians have once again been expelled from their shelters since the beginning of August.

UNRWA head Philippe Lazzarini warned regarding Gaza, “Delaying a humanitarian pause will increase the risk of spread among children.” He suggested that some Israeli children could suffer from an epidemic, as well, but of course Israeli children have largely been vaccinated continually. Palestinian children had also been almost entirely vaccinated up until the Israeli total war on Gaza was implemented last fall.

UNICEF wrote of another war, Ukraine, “UNICEF helps vaccinate over 400 million children globally against polio every year, to eradicate polio worldwide. In Ukraine, UNICEF works to secure uninterrupted availability of life-saving vaccines for children and adults and to maintain high routine immunization coverage. As the war and subsequent displacement continues, gaps in immunization coverage put children’s health at risk.”

Although children in Ukraine are also at risk from polio outbreaks, the human toll of that war pales in comparison to Gaza. Some 2,000 children have been killed as a result of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s total war on the Gaza population has blown over 15,000 children to smithereens.

Whereas Putin’s Russia has been massively sanctioned for its illegal occupation and warfare in Ukraine by the US and most NATO countries, Israel’s government, which illegally occupied Gaza in 1967 and which has shown a reckless disregard for civilian life that may amount to genocide, has been given tens of billions of dollars by the Biden administration.

Type 2 polio vaccinations are substantially down over the past ten months, since the population and the aid workers have been constantly expelled from a succession of supposed safe zones by the Israeli military, medical facilities have been destroyed, and medicine deliveries have been made difficult or impossible by the bombings, artillery barrages, machine gun fire, drone strikes, lack of fuel and general chaos deliberately inflicted on the entire population by monstrously permissive Israeli rules of engagement — which entirely disregard the value of civilian, noncombatant life.

“Gaza Polio,” by Juan Cole, Digital, Dream / Dreamland v. 3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Although Israeli authorities are allowing the delivery of the refrigerated trucks necessary for the vaccines, as well as the vaccine doses themselves, through the Kerem Shalom crossing, the aid workers are pointing out that these steps do no good at all unless there is a ceasefire that allows the aid workers to move around and give the vaccines to the children. Borger quotes Lazzarini as saying, “It is not enough to bring the vaccines into Gaza and protect the cold chain. To have an impact, the vaccines must end up in the mouths of every child under the age of 10.”

UNICEF points out that “The world has made tremendous progress against polio in the past three decades, vaccinating over 2.5 billion children and reducing cases by 99 percent. But this progress is fragile, and we cannot afford to lose focus. Millions of children are still missing out on routine vaccinations because of pandemic disruptions, conflict, climate disasters and displacement.”

It quotes Yuliia Dovjanych, Head Doctor at the ‘Dbayu’ medical centre “Infectious diseases do not disappear during the war. The fight against them is our ‘medical front’ where we must remain resilient. Therefore, we must continue to get vaccinated, take care of our health and the health of our children!” Some 11,520 civilians have been killed in the Ukraine war, whereas over 40,000 people have been killed in Gaza, a majority of them women and children.

At the medical front in Gaza, the war to save the children is going very badly. It will be lost without a ceasefire.

The Israeli strikes came a day after a Houthi drone strike, which may amount to a war crime, on a Tel Aviv residential neighborhood that killed one civilian and wounded four others. The Israeli airstrikes, which killed at least six civilians and reportedly injured at least 80 others, hit more than two dozen oil storage tanks and two shipping cranes in Hodeidah port in northwest Yemen, as well as a power plant in Hodeidah’s Salif district. The attacks appeared to cause disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects. Serious violations of the laws of war committed willfully, that is deliberately or recklessly, are war crimes.

“The Israeli attacks on Hodeidah in response to the Houthis’ strike on Tel Aviv could have a lasting impact on millions of Yemenis in Houthi-controlled territories,” said Niku Jafarnia, Yemen and Bahrain researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Yemenis are already enduring widespread hunger after a decade-long conflict. These attacks will only exacerbate their suffering.” 

Human Rights Watch interviewed 11 people about the Hodeidah attack, including a Houthi official in Yemen’s oil industry and four United Nations agency staff with knowledge of the port. Human Rights Watch also analyzed satellite imagery of the targeted locations and photographs of potential weapons remnants collected by the nongovernmental organization Mwatana for Human Rights. Human Rights Watch sent its preliminary findings to Israeli authorities on July 31 and to the Houthis on August 7. Neither has replied.

The Israeli attacks killed Ahmed Abdullah Musa Jilan, Salah Abdullah Muqbil al-Sarari, Abdul Bari Muhammad Yusuf Ezzi, Nabil Nasher Abdo Abdullah, Abu Bakr Hussein Abdullah Faqih, and Idris Dawood Hassan Ahmed, all Yemen Petroleum Company employees. The Houthi drone strike on Tel Aviv killed 50-year-old Yevgeny Ferder in an apartment building. 

An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson, Daniel Hagari, said that the Houthi drone was an “Iranian-made Samad-3” unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The Samad-3’s guidance and targeting capabilities are unclear, and the Houthi’s target was uncertain, making it difficult to determine whether the strike hit its intended target. The Houthis did not indicate that it was attacking a military objective, but stated that they had struck an “important target,” possibly a reference to the US Embassy branch office in the vicinity.

The Houthi attack, which deliberately or indiscriminately harmed civilians and civilian objects, may amount to a war crime. In recent months, the Houthis have indiscriminately launched numerous missiles at the Israeli port towns of Eilat and Haifa. 

Human Rights Watch found that Israeli forces damaged or destroyed at least 29 of the 41 oil storage tanks at Hodeidah port, as well as the only two cranes used for loading and unloading supplies from ships. The airstrikes also destroyed oil tanks connected to the Hodeidah power plant, causing the power plant to stop operating for 12 hours.  

A remnant that Mwatana for Human Rights collected at the site bore the markings of Woodward, a US manufacturing company, and matches remnants collected in other contexts of the GBU-39 series bomb made by the US company Boeing. The GBU-39, known as the “small diameter bomb,” is a guided, airdropped munition. 

Human Rights Watch also wrote to Woodward and Boeing on August 14 but did not receive a response

The Hodeidah port is critical for delivering food and other necessities to the Yemeni population, who depend on imports. About 70 percent of Yemen’s commercial imports and 80 percent of its humanitarian assistance passes through Hodeidah port, which UN Development Programme (UNDP) Resident Representative Auke Lootsma said was “absolutely crucial to commercial and humanitarian activities.” Rosemary DiCarlo, under-secretary-general for the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, described the port as a “lifeline for millions of people” that should be “open and operating.” 

A UN agency official said that about 3,400 people, all civilians, work at the port. The official said on July 30 that he had not “seen a single new vessel entering the port since the attack, which is an alarming indication” for humanitarian aid provision. Other Yemeni ports lack the same capacity to manage imports, and the damage and destruction of the oil tanks, loading cranes, and broader damage to the port’s facilities would take significant funding and time to rebuild. 

The Houthi oil industry official said that the early evening strikes were carried out “while dozens of civilians were there, including staff who run these tanks, and truck drivers who were there to take oil to transport to other governorates.” 

Human Rights Watch analysis of satellite imagery found that the oil tanks burned for at least three days, posing environmental concerns. Musaed Aklan, an environmental expert at the Sana’a Center, a Yemeni research group, said that “the toxic fumes resulting from the burning of thousands of tons of fuel … undoubtedly pose a serious risk to public health.” He said that oil leaks from the tanks into surrounding areas “risk contaminating nearby water sources, soil, beaches, and marine habitats.”

Hagari, the Israeli military spokesperson, described the target of attack as “Al Hudaydah Port, used by the Houthis as the main supply route for the transfer of Iranian weapons from Iran to Yemen.” He said the Israeli air force “struck dual-use infrastructure used for terrorist activities, including energy infrastructure. Israel’s necessary and proportionate strikes were carried out in order to stop the Houthi’s terror attacks.” The Israeli government has not provided information to substantiate these claims.

Under UN Security Council Resolution 2534 (2020), the UN Mission to Support the Hodeidah Agreement is mandated to oversee Hodeidah city and port to ensure that no military personnel or material are present. An official for a UN agency that monitors the port said that the agency had never found evidence of a Houthi military presence in the port. He said that another UN agency that inspects vessels before they enter the port had not found any weapons. Two UN officials who operate in Hodeidah noted that Houthi authorities provide prior approval for UN access and accompany UN officials on inspections.

The oil industry official said that the oil tanks at the port are not owned by the Houthis but “by Yemeni businessmen who import the oil and resell it to fuel stations and other institutions.” Aid organizations also own some of the oil and use it for their operations. A WFP official said that the organization lost 780,000 liters of fuel in the attack, which it was using to “support hospital generators” and water and sanitation infrastructure across Yemen. The remaining oil is used for various other public purposes, said the oil industry official and Mwatana. Two UN agency officials said that the oil at the port was imported from the United Arab Emirates.

The Israeli airstrikes also struck the main power plant in Hodeidah. Two people knowledgeable about Hodeidah said that the power plant was the city’s main source of electricity, providing electricity to hospitals, schools, businesses, and homes. The climate in Hodeidah governorate is among the hottest in Yemen, making electricity critical for fans, air conditioning, and refrigeration.

The applicable laws of war prohibit deliberate, indiscriminate, or disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian objects. An attack not directed at a specific military objective is indiscriminate. An attack is disproportionate if the expected civilian loss is excessive compared to the anticipated military gain of the attack. When used by an armed force or non-state armed group, port facilities, oil storage tanks, and electrical power plants can be valid military objectives. 

No information has been made public indicating that weapons or military supplies were being stored at or delivered to the port, or that the oil and electricity, monitored under Resolution 2534, were being diverted to the Houthi military, which would make the Israeli attack unlawfully indiscriminate. However, even if the attack were against valid military objectives, the harm to the civilian population likely made the attack disproportionate. In addition to the reported civilian casualties, the damage to the port facilities would appear to inflict excessive immediate and longer-term harm for large swaths of the Yemeni population who rely on the Hodeidah port for survival.

Israel’s allies, including the United States and the United Kingdom, should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel so long as its forces commit systematic and widespread laws-of-war violations, including in Gaza and in Lebanon, with impunity. Governments that continue to provide arms to the Israeli government risk complicity in war crimes. 

The UN Panel of Experts on Yemen has also previously found that Iran is likely supplying weapons to the Houthis. Iran should not provide missiles to the Houthis so long as the Houthis continue to use them in unlawful attacks.

“The Israeli airstrikes on critical infrastructure in Hodeidah could have a profoundly devastating impact on many Yemeni lives over the longer term,” Jafarnia said. “Both the Israelis and the Houthis should immediately halt all unlawful attacks affecting civilians and their lives.”

Via Human Rights Watch

—–

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

Israeli Strikes damage Fuel Depot at Hodeida

(The Conversation) – Gaza is reeling after a missile strike launched by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) targeted a building and mosque within a school complex in Gaza City on August 10. The Israeli military said the school was operating as a Hamas command and control post, but the buildings were reportedly also sheltering more than 6,000 displaced people.

Palestinian authorities have stated that the attack killed more than 80 people, a figure disputed by the IDF, which claimed that the strike killed 19 fighters, including senior Hamas commanders.

August 12 marks the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. Those conventions remain the core of “international humanitarian law” (IHL). This represents the body of rules under international law that regulates the conduct of war.

Each of the four treaties focuses on the protection of a particular category of war victim. The first three treaties (on wounded and sick soldiers on land; wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers at sea; and prisoners of war) updated earlier treaties signed in 1899, 1907 and 1929, whereas the fourth was a true innovation. It set out for the first time comprehensive protections for civilians.

Those four Geneva Conventions have now been ratified by 196 states, effectively covering the entire world. They have also been updated through three further treaties (or “additional protocols”), and supplemented by a variety of others, such as treaties banning or regulating particular weapons.

But, notwithstanding these significant legal advances, the number of conflicts around the world has steadily increased over the past half century – and particularly in the past 15 years. Fatalities from organised violence – including war – have risen steadily, particularly over the past 25 years (2023 reportedly had the third highest annual fatalities from organised violence since the Rwandan genocide in 1994).

Israel’s assault on Gaza since last year’s October 7 attacks by Hamas has accounted for a significant number of deaths – nearly 40,000. The majority of these were civilians, according to the numbers compiled by the Gaza health ministry, which are all we have to go on. Israel’s actions have come under intense scrutiny, with mounting evidence of war crimes and multiple attempts at accountability, including before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

When is a school a lawful target?

A school is a classic example of a civilian object that cannot, as a general rule, be targeted. Where a school is used for military purposes, however, it can potentially become a lawful military objective. This would be the case if its use makes an effective contribution to military action and if its destruction, capture or neutralisation offers a “definite military advantage”. So, if the school building did house a Hamas or Islamic Jihad command centre, as claimed, this may well render it a military objective.

But even military objectives cannot be targeted if doing so may be expected to cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population. Here the test is whether such harm may be expected to be “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.

This calls for an assessment to be made before an attack of the likely effects of the strike on the civilian population. Given that this was a building in a school complex that also housed a mosque and was sheltering a large number of displaced people, it is very difficult to see how anything other than a significant number of civilian casualties could result. This makes the legality of the strike much harder to justify.

An attack that is knowingly going to cause clearly excessive civilian harm is a war crime for which the perpetrators can be prosecuted (in certain cases, their commanders/political leaders can be prosecuted as well).

Indeed, in many recent conflicts, militaries have (successfully or not) claimed to pursue “zero civilian casualty” policies, to avoid allegations of disproportionate attacks and to increase their legitimacy.

Violations on both sides

If Hamas and Islamic Jihad did use the school as a command centre, effectively relying on the civilians inhabiting the school as human shields, this itself is a violation of IHL and potentially a war crime.

Hamas has been accused before of using Palestinian civilians as human shields (as has Israel), and the IDF is not alone in alleging that they have done so during the current conflict. Yet even in such situations, Israel remains bound by the prohibition of disproportionate harm to civilians when targeting schools that are being used for military purposes by Hamas. It cannot justify any attempt to evade those obligations on the basis of Hamas’ wrongdoing.

Finally, though the IDF insisted it had taken “numerous steps to mitigate the risk to civilians”, it is not clear that they issued any advance warnings to the civilians located in the school. This is required (except in certain circumstances) by IHL.

Warnings are an essential means of complying with a state’s international law obligation to spare the civilian population during military operations. The IDF has issued such warnings in relation to other strikes during the current conflict (though some of these have been criticised as being unclear and thus ineffective). It is not clear on what basis they appear not to have done so here.

The United Nations has noted with concern the pattern of Israeli attacks on schools throughout Gaza. The IDF continues to argue that its strikes comply with IHL. There are strong reasons to doubt this.

But it must also be emphasised that IHL establishes an absolute minimum of permissible conduct in wartime. Indeed, much of IHL is extremely permissive as to what militaries can do during war. That we are now celebrating the 75th anniversary of the core IHL treaties is a good reminder that we should not assume its prescriptions reflect contemporary moral standards.

Militaries and armed groups ought not merely to ask whether a particular military operation would be lawful, but also whether it would be just.

Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne, Professor of Public International Law, University of Bristol

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

More than three quarters of the 99 journalists killed worldwide in 2023 were killed in Gaza

( Globalvoices.org ) – On July 31, Al Jazeera journalists Ismail al-Ghoul and Rami al-Rifi were killed by Israel in the Shati refugee camp in the north of Gaza while reporting on the assassination of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyya in Iran.

The Israeli army admitted to killing al-Ghoul and al-Rifi, accusing them of being members of Al Qassam, the military wing of Hamas, and of participating in the October 7 attack. This dangerous accusation — thoroughly refuted by the channel — has been used repeatedly by the Israeli side to justify killing journalists, which risks normalizing the targeting of journalists with unfounded accusations.

Al Jazeera said that Al Ghoul, who had previously reported on the Israeli raids of Al-Shifa Hospital in northern Gaza, was detained by Israeli forces in March and released 12 hours later, disproving the claims of his affiliation with Hamas or other organizations.

Nicola Perugini, associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Edinburgh, warned on X about using such accusations against journalists:

A disturbing pattern

According to preliminary figures from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at least 113 journalists and media workers have been killed since the war began on October 7, 2023, with three confirmed to have been targeted and 10 more under investigation. The Gaza government media office put the number at 165 Palestinian journalists and media workers killed. 

According to Reporters without Borders (RSF), “29 of [the 120 journalists reported killed by [RSF] have been killed in circumstances that point to intentional targeting, in violation of international law.” Three complaints have been filed with the International Criminal Court (ICC) by the press freedom organization urging independent investigations of these war crimes.

The Al Jazeera Network — banned by Israel since May 2023 — has been heavily targeted, with five of its journalists killed in Gaza since the war began. Hamza al-Dahdouh, son of Gaza bureau chief Wael al-Dahdouh, and Moustafa Thuraya were killed in a January airstrike. The Israeli army also alleged the two men were “members of Gaza-based terrorist organizations,” which was equally refuted by the channel and others.

In February, a drone strike injured Wael al-Dahdouh and killed cameraman Samer Abu Daqqa. Wael’s wife, seven-year-old daughter, and 15-year-old son were also killed in an Israeli airstrike on October 28, 2023.

“These deadly attacks on Al Jazeera personnel coincided with a defamation campaign by Israeli authorities,” according to RSF, warning that “conflating journalism with ‘terrorism’ endangers reporters and threatens the right to information.”

“The killing of al-Ghoul and al-Rifi is the latest example of the risks of documenting the war in Gaza, the deadliest conflict for journalists the organization has documented in 30 years,” Jodie Ginsberg, CPJ’s CEO told Al Jazeera, emphasizing that the killing of journalists by Israel has been a disturbing pattern over the past 20 years. “This appears to be part of a broader [Israeli] strategy to stifle the information coming out of Gaza,” she explained, adding that the ban on Al Jazeera from reporting in Israel is part of this trend.

Trauma and exhaustion

Since October 7, Israel has not allowed any foreign journalists to enter the Gaza strip to report on the ongoing war except if embedded with the Israeli army. This complete ban has meant that local journalists are the ones to bear the brunt of coverage at great personal risk.

The immense trauma and exhaustion experienced by these local journalists, who remain vulnerable despite taking all possible safety measures, was best expressed in a poignant quote from Al Jazeera English journalist Hind Khoudary that went viral after the killing of her colleagues.

Another colleague,  Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Jerusalem, Najwan Simri wrote in a tribute to her colleague Ismail:

It was enough to look into his eyes, and contemplate his features, to feel the depth of Gaza’s sadness and reproach towards us. I always felt that he reproached us with excessive politeness.. and great hope, as if he had not lost hope in us for a moment.

– Najwan Simri (@SimriNajwan) 31 July, 2024

Meanwhile, local journalists in Gaza protested and held a vigil in response to al-Ghoul’s killing expressing their outrage at the perilous conditions they navigate daily and the lack of accountability and protection. Al Jazeera Arabic staff held a silent protest live in their studio.

An emotional video of the moment Al Jazeera Arabic presenter received and shared the news of the killing of Ismail Al Ghoul and Rami Al Rifi, went viral.

Bayan Abusultan, a feminist Palestinian journalist in Gaza tweeted:

They want to silence us.
They threaten all journalists who are still in Gaza city, and the north.

Covering the news here = Being targeted by the israeli forces.

Remember to keep talking about #Gaza even if they got every last one of us.

A history of impunity

Israel has a history of targeting journalists with impunity, as evidenced by the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, killed by the Israeli army while reporting in Jennin in the West Bank on May 11, 2022. Abu Akleh’s killing highlights the dangers faced by Palestinian media professionals due to a lack of accountability.

Carlos Martínez de la Serna of thr CPJ criticized Israel for refusing to cooperate with the FBI and blocking potential ICC investigations into her killing, calling for an end to Israel’s impunity in journalist killings, which have only increased during the ongoing Gaza war.

In 2022, Abu Akleh’s family and Al Jazeera requested the ICC to investigate her killing, but Israel’s leaders, including former prime minister Yair Lapid, resisted any interrogation of IDF soldiers and declined to open a criminal investigation into the killing.

The scale of journalist killing by Israel during this war is best seen when comparing it to the global number. More than three quarters of the 99 journalists killed worldwide in 2023 were killed in the Gaza war according to the CPJ. This alarming number emphasizes the urgent need for accountability and the enhancement of protection measures for journalists everywhere, ensuring the safety and protection of all the journalists who courageously report from the front lines of conflicts.

This post is part of Advox, a Global Voices project dedicated to protecting freedom of expression online. All Posts

 

Written byWalid El Houri

Via Globalvoices.org

——
Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

AJ+ “Journalist Ismail Al-Ghoul wrote about bearing witness in #Gaza before his killing”

End Grave Abuses Against Palestinian Detainees, Impunity for Abuses

By Bill Van Esveld, Associate Director, MENA, Children’s Rights Division | –

A standoff at Israel’s Sde Teiman military base this week has thrown longstanding abuses against Palestinian detainees and the Israeli military’s history of impunity for torture into stark relief.

On July 29, Israeli military police arrested nine Israeli soldiers at the base on suspicion of “severe abuse” of a Palestinian detainee. News reports said the man was admitted to the hospital with broken ribs and life-threatening injuries to the anus and lungs.

Soldiers barricaded themselves inside the base to prevent the arrests. Protesters against the arrests, including members of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, pushed their way through the perimeter fence. When security forces removed the nine soldiers, protesters went to the Beit Lid military base, where the soldiers were eventually taken for questioning, and breached its perimeter as well.

Arrests of Israeli soldiers for abusing Palestinians are rare. From 2017 to 2021, just 0.87 percent of complaints against soldiers led to prosecutions, according to the Israeli rights group Yesh Din.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Israel’s defense minister and the military chief of staff condemned the clashes at the two bases, though not the alleged torture of the detainee. Israel’s justice minister criticized detaining for questioning soldiers he said were performing a “holy job.” The finance minister and the national security minister both tweeted “hands off our reservists.” The Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee chair slammed “this despicable pursuit of our fighters.”

Since June, Israeli authorities have been transferring Palestinian detainees from Sde Teiman to other facilities due to reports of abuse. But the transfers, and investigations into some cases, are a grossly insufficient response to reports of “widespread torture” and ill-treatment at Sde Teiman. Rights groups cite beatings, stress positions, surgeries without anesthesia, sexual violence, and the prolonged cuffing of arms and legs. An Israeli doctor working there wrote in April that in one week, “two prisoners had their legs amputated due to handcuff injuries, which unfortunately is a routine event.”

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also reported waterboarding, electrocution, and the detention of healthcare workers, girls, and a woman over 80-years-old with Alzheimer’s disease. One man said Israeli soldiers fired a nail gun into his knee. At least 53 Palestinians have died in custody since October 7.

Israel’s allies should increase pressure to end grave abuses against Palestinians in custody, stop detaining them without charge or trial, and allow independent monitors access to detention facilities.

——
Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

Israeli protesters enter army base after soldiers held over Gaza detainee abuse | BBC News Video