7 june 2018
Cancellation of the Argentina-Israel friendly in Jerusalem raises concerns as anti-Israel voices call for boycotting 2019 contest in capital; cancellation could cost taxpayers NIS 50M.
Following the cancellation of a friendly soccer match between Israel and Argentina, attention has turned to the Eurovision Song Contest, which next year is set to be held in Jerusalem, as anti-Israel voices call on people to boycott the event.
For weeks, rumors have circulated about the possibility of the Eurovision being boycotted or cancelled altogether after Israel's Netta Barzilai won the 2018 contest in May, netting the country its fourth ever win and the right to host next year's events.
For Israel to be able to host the competition, a minimum of NIS 50 million will have to be deposited to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), since it is one of the basic requirements for any host nation. In case of a cancellation, the EBU has the right to foreclose the deposit.
The events surrounding the cancellation of the pre-World Cup Argentina match have triggered further concern among the producers of Eurovision in Jerusalem, fearing that the latest cancellation could set a precedent for years to come.
Senior sources involved in the production say that “If politicians insist on intervening, there’s a real danger the Eurovision in Israel might not happen.”
During the first work meeting conducted regarding the Eurovision 2019, between the EBU and the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation (IBC)–who plan to produce the event, it was made clear to the Israeli side that the Europeans are not willing to tolerate political intervention of any kind.
“They brought up Ukraine as an example, where the song contest has almost been cancelled because of similar concerns and we should be really careful. The IBC promised there would be no governmental intervention”, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
During the meeting, the request was brought up by the EBU to have at least two cities put forth as part of the tender for the Eurovision Song Contest. A key demand by the Europeans, however, was that the cities in question be “non-divisive” locations—an apparent hint that Jerusalem was being ruled out as the host city from the outset.
“Our goal is to avoid countries boycotting the location of the event”, the European representatives told their Israeli counterparts.
So far, not a single city besides Jerusalem has officially requested to host the song contest and the deadline for filing the request is in August. However, an extension for filing a request to allow other cities to put in their tender could be granted for another month, should it become necessary.
Another issue that was underlined by the Europeans is the need to have an events hall which contains at least 10,000 seats and 3,000 hotel rooms with accommodating transportation services available 24 hours a day.
Minister of Culture and Sport Miri Regev was asked Wednesday about the political intervention in Eurovision 2019.
“I have to tell you one thing: Jerusalem is not a political issue. Jerusalem is the source of pride for the Israeli state and for the Jewish people all over the world ... We don’t have a reason to either apologize for it or keep explaining it," she said.
"When we get to the Eurovision Song Contest, we’ll talk about it”, she added during a speech explaining her stance on the cancellation of the Argentina-Israel match.
Next month another meeting between the EUB and the ICB is due to take place where the organizational process will be discussed more in depth.
Meanwhile, the cancellation of the Argentina match serves as a warning to Israeli politicians ahead of the Eurovision 2019, that a political intervention might lead to the cancellation of the event altogether.
Following the cancellation of a friendly soccer match between Israel and Argentina, attention has turned to the Eurovision Song Contest, which next year is set to be held in Jerusalem, as anti-Israel voices call on people to boycott the event.
For weeks, rumors have circulated about the possibility of the Eurovision being boycotted or cancelled altogether after Israel's Netta Barzilai won the 2018 contest in May, netting the country its fourth ever win and the right to host next year's events.
For Israel to be able to host the competition, a minimum of NIS 50 million will have to be deposited to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), since it is one of the basic requirements for any host nation. In case of a cancellation, the EBU has the right to foreclose the deposit.
The events surrounding the cancellation of the pre-World Cup Argentina match have triggered further concern among the producers of Eurovision in Jerusalem, fearing that the latest cancellation could set a precedent for years to come.
Senior sources involved in the production say that “If politicians insist on intervening, there’s a real danger the Eurovision in Israel might not happen.”
During the first work meeting conducted regarding the Eurovision 2019, between the EBU and the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation (IBC)–who plan to produce the event, it was made clear to the Israeli side that the Europeans are not willing to tolerate political intervention of any kind.
“They brought up Ukraine as an example, where the song contest has almost been cancelled because of similar concerns and we should be really careful. The IBC promised there would be no governmental intervention”, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
During the meeting, the request was brought up by the EBU to have at least two cities put forth as part of the tender for the Eurovision Song Contest. A key demand by the Europeans, however, was that the cities in question be “non-divisive” locations—an apparent hint that Jerusalem was being ruled out as the host city from the outset.
“Our goal is to avoid countries boycotting the location of the event”, the European representatives told their Israeli counterparts.
So far, not a single city besides Jerusalem has officially requested to host the song contest and the deadline for filing the request is in August. However, an extension for filing a request to allow other cities to put in their tender could be granted for another month, should it become necessary.
Another issue that was underlined by the Europeans is the need to have an events hall which contains at least 10,000 seats and 3,000 hotel rooms with accommodating transportation services available 24 hours a day.
Minister of Culture and Sport Miri Regev was asked Wednesday about the political intervention in Eurovision 2019.
“I have to tell you one thing: Jerusalem is not a political issue. Jerusalem is the source of pride for the Israeli state and for the Jewish people all over the world ... We don’t have a reason to either apologize for it or keep explaining it," she said.
"When we get to the Eurovision Song Contest, we’ll talk about it”, she added during a speech explaining her stance on the cancellation of the Argentina-Israel match.
Next month another meeting between the EUB and the ICB is due to take place where the organizational process will be discussed more in depth.
Meanwhile, the cancellation of the Argentina match serves as a warning to Israeli politicians ahead of the Eurovision 2019, that a political intervention might lead to the cancellation of the event altogether.
6 june 2018
An upcoming friendly match between Argentina and Israel’s national football teams in Jerusalem has been cancelled, Argentine media reported Wednesday.
The Argentine Football Association said they had informed their Israeli counterparts about the decision.
The match, which was slated for June 9, was set to be played in Jerusalem’s Teddy Kollek Stadium but had drawn intense reactions, especially from Palestinians. It also faced boycotts from various groups.
The decision has triggered a state of tension among Israeli political and sport figures.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke twice by phone with Argentine President Mauricio Macri to ask him to persuade the team not to cancel their visit, but Macri said the matter was out of his purview.
Senior aides to Netanyahu lambasted Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev for her decision to move the match to Jerusalem from its original venue in Haifa.
"Why was it necessary to move the match to Jerusalem?" one aide asked.
Israeli Army Minister Avigdor Lieberman criticized the decision, tweeting, "It's a shame that soccer players from Argentina caved to pressure by Israel's haters. We will not cower before anti-Semites who support terrorism."
Pro-Palestine activists, who stressed that the match would serve the efforts of Israel to legalize its occupation of Jerusalem, staged protests in many places as well as in Barcelona, where preparation for the game was ongoing.
The Argentine Football Association said they had informed their Israeli counterparts about the decision.
The match, which was slated for June 9, was set to be played in Jerusalem’s Teddy Kollek Stadium but had drawn intense reactions, especially from Palestinians. It also faced boycotts from various groups.
The decision has triggered a state of tension among Israeli political and sport figures.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke twice by phone with Argentine President Mauricio Macri to ask him to persuade the team not to cancel their visit, but Macri said the matter was out of his purview.
Senior aides to Netanyahu lambasted Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev for her decision to move the match to Jerusalem from its original venue in Haifa.
"Why was it necessary to move the match to Jerusalem?" one aide asked.
Israeli Army Minister Avigdor Lieberman criticized the decision, tweeting, "It's a shame that soccer players from Argentina caved to pressure by Israel's haters. We will not cower before anti-Semites who support terrorism."
Pro-Palestine activists, who stressed that the match would serve the efforts of Israel to legalize its occupation of Jerusalem, staged protests in many places as well as in Barcelona, where preparation for the game was ongoing.
Argentine reports claim Argentinian FA decided to cancel the game scheduled with Israel Saturday at the Teddy Kollek Stadium due to criticism and threats sent to family members of the players.
A friendly World Cup warm-up soccer match scheduled to take place between Israel and Argentina on Saturday in Jerusalem has been canceled due to what appears to be pressure by anti-Israel activists, according to Argentine media outlets.
The match is supposed to kick off at 9:35pm at the Teddy Kollek Stadium, but reports said that in the last few hours, a decision was taken to pull out and an official statements confirming the change is expected shortly.
One newspaper reported that the decision was final and that those involved with the promotion of the game had been notified and were scrambling to convince the organizers to change their minds.
In recent days building up to the match, a number of demonstrations have been held against the game in both Argentina and Spain.
Palestinian FA chief Jibril Rajoub has been at the forefront of trying to have the game called off, claiming that it is being played on “occupied land” and calling on soccer fan
He also wrote to Claudio Tapia, the head of the Argentinian FA, last week accusing Israel of using the match as a "political tool."
"The Israeli government has turned a regular sports match into a political tool. As was widely covered in Argentinian media, the match now is being played in order to celebrate the '70th anniversary of the State of Israel'," part of Rajoub's letter said.
On Sunday, Rajoub declared a campaign against Argentina and particularly soccer star and striker Lionel Messi, noting he has millions of fans across the Arab and Islamic world, Asia and Africa.
"He's a big symbol so we are going to target him personally and we call on all to burn his picture and his shirt and to abandon him. We still hope that Messi will not come," he told reporters after leaving the Argentinian representative office in Ramallah.
According to another news outlet, the Argentinian FA convened to discuss the matter which raised concern over the influx of protests against the match and the threats received by family members of the players.
A friendly World Cup warm-up soccer match scheduled to take place between Israel and Argentina on Saturday in Jerusalem has been canceled due to what appears to be pressure by anti-Israel activists, according to Argentine media outlets.
The match is supposed to kick off at 9:35pm at the Teddy Kollek Stadium, but reports said that in the last few hours, a decision was taken to pull out and an official statements confirming the change is expected shortly.
One newspaper reported that the decision was final and that those involved with the promotion of the game had been notified and were scrambling to convince the organizers to change their minds.
In recent days building up to the match, a number of demonstrations have been held against the game in both Argentina and Spain.
Palestinian FA chief Jibril Rajoub has been at the forefront of trying to have the game called off, claiming that it is being played on “occupied land” and calling on soccer fan
He also wrote to Claudio Tapia, the head of the Argentinian FA, last week accusing Israel of using the match as a "political tool."
"The Israeli government has turned a regular sports match into a political tool. As was widely covered in Argentinian media, the match now is being played in order to celebrate the '70th anniversary of the State of Israel'," part of Rajoub's letter said.
On Sunday, Rajoub declared a campaign against Argentina and particularly soccer star and striker Lionel Messi, noting he has millions of fans across the Arab and Islamic world, Asia and Africa.
"He's a big symbol so we are going to target him personally and we call on all to burn his picture and his shirt and to abandon him. We still hope that Messi will not come," he told reporters after leaving the Argentinian representative office in Ramallah.
According to another news outlet, the Argentinian FA convened to discuss the matter which raised concern over the influx of protests against the match and the threats received by family members of the players.
5 june 2018
A junior manager at a small town Carrefour supermarket branch removes Israeli dates placed on a special shelf for Ramadan after a Muslim customer complains they offend Muslims' feelings.
BDS activists in France uploaded a video online in which a junior manager of a Carrefour supermarket is seen removing packages of Israeli dates from the shelves at the request of a Muslim shopper.
The incident took place at a branch of the supermarket located in the town of Chambourcy, just West of Paris. The manager removed the Israeli dates which were placed on a special shelf for Ramadan products after a Muslim shopper complained that the sale of Israeli products on a shelf reserved for Ramadan products was an insult to Muslim sensitivities.
The manager yielded to the customer’s demands and began to remove the dates while proclaiming that he had no intention of engaging with the political complaints of the customer.
While the products were being removed, the complaining customer continued to shout that Muslim customers had a lot of purchasing power and that they ought to use their power to boycott Israeli products. The customer was furious that the shop was selling food from Israel “at a time that it is slaughtering children in Gaza."
The belief in Israel is that the incident was a local initiative that contradicts the supermarket chain’s policy. Carrefour is opposed to a boycott of Israel and sells Israeli products. In the past, the chain was subject to pressure to boycott Israeli products, and in some cases Israeli produce was removed from the shelves, but was later returned as a result of Israeli counter-pressure.
The Israeli Embassy in France said in response: "The Embassy closely follows every manifestation of boycott activity against Israel in France and maintains continuous and intensive dialogue with the leaders of the business sector as well as law enforcement authorities and the French government to eradicate the phenomenon which is prohibited by French law."
BDS activists in France uploaded a video online in which a junior manager of a Carrefour supermarket is seen removing packages of Israeli dates from the shelves at the request of a Muslim shopper.
The incident took place at a branch of the supermarket located in the town of Chambourcy, just West of Paris. The manager removed the Israeli dates which were placed on a special shelf for Ramadan products after a Muslim shopper complained that the sale of Israeli products on a shelf reserved for Ramadan products was an insult to Muslim sensitivities.
The manager yielded to the customer’s demands and began to remove the dates while proclaiming that he had no intention of engaging with the political complaints of the customer.
While the products were being removed, the complaining customer continued to shout that Muslim customers had a lot of purchasing power and that they ought to use their power to boycott Israeli products. The customer was furious that the shop was selling food from Israel “at a time that it is slaughtering children in Gaza."
The belief in Israel is that the incident was a local initiative that contradicts the supermarket chain’s policy. Carrefour is opposed to a boycott of Israel and sells Israeli products. In the past, the chain was subject to pressure to boycott Israeli products, and in some cases Israeli produce was removed from the shelves, but was later returned as a result of Israeli counter-pressure.
The Israeli Embassy in France said in response: "The Embassy closely follows every manifestation of boycott activity against Israel in France and maintains continuous and intensive dialogue with the leaders of the business sector as well as law enforcement authorities and the French government to eradicate the phenomenon which is prohibited by French law."
1 june 2018
by Valentina Azarova
As Israel ramps up construction of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) with added cover from the Trump administration, we should recall that not only does the establishment and maintenance of the settlements constitute violations of international law, but so do all private transactions and business dealings in or related to the settlements, which Israel has effectively integrated into its national economy. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 2016 affirmed that Israel’s settlement activity in the OPT has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law,” but did not clarify the nature of the legal consequences and risks that states and private actors may incur from activities in or related to the settlements.
Hundreds of businesses continue to operate freely and without consequence in some 250 settlements Israel has erected. In March 2016, member states of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) decided to act on this issue: Through HRC resolution 31/36 they tasked the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) with setting up a database of such businesses and reviewing it annually. The OHCHR announced [PDF] in a January 2018 report that it had created a list of 206 businesses, the names of which it intends to disclose “in a future update.”
The database is a unique transparency tool and soft power enforcement mechanism that could provide a service to states and their corporate nationals who may become involved in illegal business activities. Many states realize that the initiative is an opportunity to develop a blueprint for a tool that would monitor activities in high-risk business environments not only in Israel’s settlements, but in other ongoing cases of occupation and annexation. The mechanism would help states protect their legal orders and business communities from the consequences of breaches of international law entailed by business activities in settlements.
The OHCHR’s January 2018 report begins the process of elaborating the methodology and working procedures for this mechanism. During its latest session in March 2018, the HRC acknowledged the importance of this task and the need to continue to support the OHCHR in its endeavor. Member states stressed the need to ensure the integrity of the work and to provide political “safe space” for the elaboration of the mechanism’s proper normative framework and working procedures.
This initiative to address rights abuses in the context of Israel’s occupation has unsurprisingly drawn attacks. Israel, the US, and others claim the database is a “blacklist” that singles out Israel for criticism and encourages the adoption of sanctions and boycott measures against all Israeli entities. They also criticize the UN for spending scarce resources and acting outside its authority as an adjudicative body.
Some UN officials and states have argued for the need for another HRC resolution to allocate the financial and human resources required to establish and sustain the database. The importance of providing businesses with legal guidance and information about other businesses’ activities should drive states to ensure that the OHCHR is able to operate impartially and with the necessary means.
It is crucial that the database be represented in the public debate and in diplomatic circles as the only kind of mechanism that the UN and its member states could have contemplated in line with international law: a tool for compliance control and transparency. Instead, thus far it has widely been misrepresented as a “blacklist.” Only an approach that understands the contribution of this interpretative exercise to the international rule of law can provide the OHCHR with bases to refute the criticisms against the initiative and enable it to engage states to support the project in the face of attempts to obstruct it.
When Harms Cannot Be Mitigated
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [PDF] require businesses to assess whether their operations have a harmful effect on human rights and to mitigate such harms by, for instance, engaging with local communities and altering particular production or supply lines. Businesses are required to abstain from activity in business environments where harms cannot be mitigated. HRC resolution 31/36 affirms that a business undertaking operations in Israel’s settlements is unable to mitigate the adverse impact of its activities on the severity and frequency of violations of human rights.
The reason for this is that all transactional activities with entities based or operating in Israeli settlements contribute to the systemic violations of individual and collective human rights that result from the wrongful appropriation, allocation, and enjoyment of property rights vis-à-vis land and other natural resources. Thus any business that is based or operates in the settlements is contributing to illicit financial flows generated from illicitly constituted and wrongfully enjoyed property rights. To guarantee their compliance with international standards, businesses must therefore terminate all their business activities that extend to the settlements. If the business fails to do so, the home state authority must shoulder the burden of regulating the business’ activities and protecting domestic subjects from exposure to the risks created by such transnational activities.
In establishing the database, the OHCHR is tasked with providing interpretative guidance on the ways in which companies and individuals acting as procurers, investors, and consumers may contribute to and benefit from violations of international law in occupation. While many such cases may not meet the high threshold of civil and criminal liability for complicity, they may still be liable to legal risks under provisions of domestic law of the business’ domicile country. They may also detrimentally affect the legal order of the company’s home state if it fails to regulate the proceeds and rights acquired by its business in the context of such transnational activities. Put differently, a company whose activities fall outside the international framework may nevertheless incur consequences under its home state’s domestic law.
The database is a chance to calibrate the application of the UNGP to business environments in situations of occupation in a manner that would raise both businesses’ and home states’ awareness of their responsibilities and of the risks they incur when engaging in certain business activities in settlements in occupied territory. States that have committed to the implementation of the UNGP in their domestic law and policy would benefit from guidance ensuring that their domestic regulatory authorities are appropriately equipped to provide adequate regulation of activities in the settlements and certain types of transactions related to them.
The database should ultimately be looking to provide guidance that would generate a deterrence effect. It would help third party states protect their legal orders and subjects from inadvertent involvement in violations of international law. Therefore, home states are not only obligated in international law but also have a self-interest in providing the necessary guidance and regulatory incentives in domestic law that would enable such calls of judgment by their corporate nationals. Legal characterizations are also likely to encourage larger businesses to vet potential business partners for their involvement in abuses in occupied territory.
The Database: Not a “Blacklist”
The task of establishing the database is the very kind of initiative that the OHCHR is expected to undertake in order to guide and further states’ and corporate actors’ respect for international law in testing environments. With HRC resolution 31/36, states have entrusted the OHCHR to clarify the type of business activities that the UN fact-finding mission on settlements deemed to have “directly and indirectly enabled, facilitated, and profited from the construction and growth of the settlements.”
Despite this important task, both proponents and opponents have dubbed the database a “blacklist” – a semantic twist that is intended to undo the image of a soft mechanism with a mandate to document, report, and engage interested parties into a coercive tool that shames offenders into compliance. This unfounded image of the database’s function and purpose intends to mislead states and business of its proper purpose in line with the OHCHR’s mandate. The database is neither tasked with the adjudication [PDF] of the responsibility and liability of concerned parties, nor is it institutionally equipped to engage in law enforcement activities.
This punitive vision of the database has arguably already alienated key target audiences. To enable the database to offer a real service to states and businesses as duty-bearers, it should take a cooperative and non-adversarial approach to compliance control. This approach will ensure the mechanism’s legitimacy and the credibility of its decision-making process with regard to entities or individuals included in the database, along with ensuring the mechanism’s ability to formulate and follow a robust methodology and set out a normative framework that sensitizes foreign home states and their business communities to their responsibilities in international law.
A Robust Normative Framework
The OHCHR must show that it is committed to making the database a transparent and proactive monitoring mechanism intended to further compliance with international law. To this end, the OHCHR should aim to engage in a detailed presentation of the normative framework, criteria, and methodology it will use to decide on the kinds of business relations it will aim to include in the database. It must answer the following questions clearly and transparently: Why are the settlements a business environment in which all forms of business relations have an adverse impact on human rights? Which businesses and which specific types of transactions would be deemed to be wrongfully contributing to and benefiting from settlements?
It should also make public its rules of procedure, including the avenues for businesses to address the mechanism, challenge its decisions, and provide up-to-date information about their activities. These elements would serve the dual purpose of due process in specific instances, as well as facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and generate pre-emptive deterrence in different industry circles.
The OHCHR’s first progress report on the establishment of the database published in January 2018 does not provide clear guidance on these questions. It indicated that all business activities in settlements would contribute to the rampant human rights abuses caused by their existence and maintenance, but it does not explicate the basis for the strict liability standard that entails a prohibition on all such activities. Nor does it explain what modalities of business transactions are caught by this standard, which are not “remote and minimal.”
A robust approach to these normative questions is critical to the legitimacy of the UN’s decision to include a business on the database, as well as for convincing businesses and their home states of the value of this regulatory initiative.
Learning from Past Initiatives
Since 2013, 18 European government advisories have warned businesses of the economic, financial, and legal risks of conducting business in Israel’s settlements in occupied territory. This advice has coincided with a notable wave of decisions by companies in such countries as Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands to terminate contracts and abstain from undertaking activities in or related to the settlements. The database would provide authoritative guidance on the basis of such decisions in international law and further the urgency of accelerating such practices.
The regulatory logic that underpins the database is not unknown to international organizations. While the database may be the first of its kind established by the OHCHR, it is not the first UN initiative to monitor and inform publics about companies committing human rights violations. Previous efforts include the UN Center for Transnational Corporation’s monitoring and reporting on companies operating in apartheid South Africa, and a UN panel on the plunder of resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
These precedents also show the potential pitfalls of such initiatives: The South Africa list lacked support from member states, in part for being rolled out as part of the deliberation on sanctions – which came with concerns on their effects on innocent populations, including those whose liberation from apartheid was being sought. The DRC list failed to gain companies’ cooperation, highlighting the significance of clarifying the basis for legal obligations and constructing the right legal narratives about the purpose and function of such projects.
A key feature of the narrative surrounding the initiative in question is the potential for universalizing the standards set out and applied by the database to other ongoing cases of occupation maintained with the aim of forcibly acquiring or disposing of territory. This may include Western Sahara, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and, most recently, Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The much-needed guidance on the immitigable character of some business activity from the perspective of the business’ responsibilities to respect human rights may also be applied to other business environments characterized by structural violations of international law beyond cases of occupation, such as systemic abuses of labor rights, unlawful expropriation of land, and illicit exploitation of natural resources.
A further contribution of this mechanism is the protection it extends to domestic legal orders. Domestic laws that regulate corporate actors in their domicile countries are in most cases able to account for a business’ transnational activity by assigning consequences to certain rights, titles, and entitlement acquired by the company through its overseas activities. Such domestic regulation measures may not provide current victims with access to reparations, but they could provide a form of redress for future victims by challenging in a third state jurisdiction the involvement of companies in the structures that enable serious human rights abuses.
Support for the Database
To further the significance of the OHCHR’s work on this mechanism, and to gain support from third home states, Palestinian representatives should actively engage the UN, third states, and civil society to support this process. Key to this is the dissemination of accurate information about the database’s purpose, functions, and prospective contribution to international law enforcement. Supporting this initiative would offer guidance to business communities and investors on activities that may relate to a number of ongoing cases of occupation maintained with the aim of annexation or forcible secession.
Support from third states and the UN system is key to ensuring the continuation of the process and guaranteeing the integrity of the mechanism. European governments wary of the politics surrounding the database have noted that their support is conditional on the ability of the OHCHR to align its decision-making process with existing international standards. Some note explicitly that this caution is a result of the lack of clarity about the mandate for this mechanism and the UN’s failure so far to substantiate the link between, on the one hand, the international wrongs and the illegal situation to which such business actually contributes in all cases, and, on the other, the list of exemplary business activities in the 2013 UN fact-finding mission on settlements’ report, on which both HRC resolution 31/36 and the UN’s first progress report on the database’s establishment rely.
The OHCHR should elaborate and make public a robust normative framework that is accessible and understandable to business and non-expert stakeholders. This framework is necessary to substantiate the methodology and thresholds that it will use to decide on the inclusion of a company on the database. Since these features of the mechanism are critical to its proper function, their elaboration and publication should coincide with the timely publication of the names of the companies that have already been vetted. The UN’s surrender to political pressure and states’ reluctance to support this initiative risks creating an unacceptable precedent that brings the commitment of third states to implement the UNGP into disrepute.
Al-Shabaka Policy Member Valentina Azarova is a visiting academic at the Manchester International Law Centre (MILC), University of Manchester, and a strategic and legal adviser to the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN). Valentina received her PhD from the Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway. She was a co-founding member of the Al-Quds Bard College, Al-Quds University, where she directed and taught on the human rights program for five years (2009-2014). She also taught at Birzeit University’s Graduate Studies School (2014-2015). Since 2008, she has worked at HaMoked – Center for the Defence of the Individual; Al-Haq; and the MATTIN Group, and consulted a range of international and inter-governmental organisations on international law as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian context. Her research concerns the role of third parties and the contribution of domestic and transnational regulatory processes to the enforcement of international law. Her publications can be accessed here.
Via the Al Shakaba Palestinian Policy Network.
05/21/18 Report: Israel Continues Judaization in Jerusalem, Ethnic Cleansing in Area C
As Israel ramps up construction of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) with added cover from the Trump administration, we should recall that not only does the establishment and maintenance of the settlements constitute violations of international law, but so do all private transactions and business dealings in or related to the settlements, which Israel has effectively integrated into its national economy. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 2016 affirmed that Israel’s settlement activity in the OPT has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law,” but did not clarify the nature of the legal consequences and risks that states and private actors may incur from activities in or related to the settlements.
Hundreds of businesses continue to operate freely and without consequence in some 250 settlements Israel has erected. In March 2016, member states of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) decided to act on this issue: Through HRC resolution 31/36 they tasked the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) with setting up a database of such businesses and reviewing it annually. The OHCHR announced [PDF] in a January 2018 report that it had created a list of 206 businesses, the names of which it intends to disclose “in a future update.”
The database is a unique transparency tool and soft power enforcement mechanism that could provide a service to states and their corporate nationals who may become involved in illegal business activities. Many states realize that the initiative is an opportunity to develop a blueprint for a tool that would monitor activities in high-risk business environments not only in Israel’s settlements, but in other ongoing cases of occupation and annexation. The mechanism would help states protect their legal orders and business communities from the consequences of breaches of international law entailed by business activities in settlements.
The OHCHR’s January 2018 report begins the process of elaborating the methodology and working procedures for this mechanism. During its latest session in March 2018, the HRC acknowledged the importance of this task and the need to continue to support the OHCHR in its endeavor. Member states stressed the need to ensure the integrity of the work and to provide political “safe space” for the elaboration of the mechanism’s proper normative framework and working procedures.
This initiative to address rights abuses in the context of Israel’s occupation has unsurprisingly drawn attacks. Israel, the US, and others claim the database is a “blacklist” that singles out Israel for criticism and encourages the adoption of sanctions and boycott measures against all Israeli entities. They also criticize the UN for spending scarce resources and acting outside its authority as an adjudicative body.
Some UN officials and states have argued for the need for another HRC resolution to allocate the financial and human resources required to establish and sustain the database. The importance of providing businesses with legal guidance and information about other businesses’ activities should drive states to ensure that the OHCHR is able to operate impartially and with the necessary means.
It is crucial that the database be represented in the public debate and in diplomatic circles as the only kind of mechanism that the UN and its member states could have contemplated in line with international law: a tool for compliance control and transparency. Instead, thus far it has widely been misrepresented as a “blacklist.” Only an approach that understands the contribution of this interpretative exercise to the international rule of law can provide the OHCHR with bases to refute the criticisms against the initiative and enable it to engage states to support the project in the face of attempts to obstruct it.
When Harms Cannot Be Mitigated
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [PDF] require businesses to assess whether their operations have a harmful effect on human rights and to mitigate such harms by, for instance, engaging with local communities and altering particular production or supply lines. Businesses are required to abstain from activity in business environments where harms cannot be mitigated. HRC resolution 31/36 affirms that a business undertaking operations in Israel’s settlements is unable to mitigate the adverse impact of its activities on the severity and frequency of violations of human rights.
The reason for this is that all transactional activities with entities based or operating in Israeli settlements contribute to the systemic violations of individual and collective human rights that result from the wrongful appropriation, allocation, and enjoyment of property rights vis-à-vis land and other natural resources. Thus any business that is based or operates in the settlements is contributing to illicit financial flows generated from illicitly constituted and wrongfully enjoyed property rights. To guarantee their compliance with international standards, businesses must therefore terminate all their business activities that extend to the settlements. If the business fails to do so, the home state authority must shoulder the burden of regulating the business’ activities and protecting domestic subjects from exposure to the risks created by such transnational activities.
In establishing the database, the OHCHR is tasked with providing interpretative guidance on the ways in which companies and individuals acting as procurers, investors, and consumers may contribute to and benefit from violations of international law in occupation. While many such cases may not meet the high threshold of civil and criminal liability for complicity, they may still be liable to legal risks under provisions of domestic law of the business’ domicile country. They may also detrimentally affect the legal order of the company’s home state if it fails to regulate the proceeds and rights acquired by its business in the context of such transnational activities. Put differently, a company whose activities fall outside the international framework may nevertheless incur consequences under its home state’s domestic law.
The database is a chance to calibrate the application of the UNGP to business environments in situations of occupation in a manner that would raise both businesses’ and home states’ awareness of their responsibilities and of the risks they incur when engaging in certain business activities in settlements in occupied territory. States that have committed to the implementation of the UNGP in their domestic law and policy would benefit from guidance ensuring that their domestic regulatory authorities are appropriately equipped to provide adequate regulation of activities in the settlements and certain types of transactions related to them.
The database should ultimately be looking to provide guidance that would generate a deterrence effect. It would help third party states protect their legal orders and subjects from inadvertent involvement in violations of international law. Therefore, home states are not only obligated in international law but also have a self-interest in providing the necessary guidance and regulatory incentives in domestic law that would enable such calls of judgment by their corporate nationals. Legal characterizations are also likely to encourage larger businesses to vet potential business partners for their involvement in abuses in occupied territory.
The Database: Not a “Blacklist”
The task of establishing the database is the very kind of initiative that the OHCHR is expected to undertake in order to guide and further states’ and corporate actors’ respect for international law in testing environments. With HRC resolution 31/36, states have entrusted the OHCHR to clarify the type of business activities that the UN fact-finding mission on settlements deemed to have “directly and indirectly enabled, facilitated, and profited from the construction and growth of the settlements.”
Despite this important task, both proponents and opponents have dubbed the database a “blacklist” – a semantic twist that is intended to undo the image of a soft mechanism with a mandate to document, report, and engage interested parties into a coercive tool that shames offenders into compliance. This unfounded image of the database’s function and purpose intends to mislead states and business of its proper purpose in line with the OHCHR’s mandate. The database is neither tasked with the adjudication [PDF] of the responsibility and liability of concerned parties, nor is it institutionally equipped to engage in law enforcement activities.
This punitive vision of the database has arguably already alienated key target audiences. To enable the database to offer a real service to states and businesses as duty-bearers, it should take a cooperative and non-adversarial approach to compliance control. This approach will ensure the mechanism’s legitimacy and the credibility of its decision-making process with regard to entities or individuals included in the database, along with ensuring the mechanism’s ability to formulate and follow a robust methodology and set out a normative framework that sensitizes foreign home states and their business communities to their responsibilities in international law.
A Robust Normative Framework
The OHCHR must show that it is committed to making the database a transparent and proactive monitoring mechanism intended to further compliance with international law. To this end, the OHCHR should aim to engage in a detailed presentation of the normative framework, criteria, and methodology it will use to decide on the kinds of business relations it will aim to include in the database. It must answer the following questions clearly and transparently: Why are the settlements a business environment in which all forms of business relations have an adverse impact on human rights? Which businesses and which specific types of transactions would be deemed to be wrongfully contributing to and benefiting from settlements?
It should also make public its rules of procedure, including the avenues for businesses to address the mechanism, challenge its decisions, and provide up-to-date information about their activities. These elements would serve the dual purpose of due process in specific instances, as well as facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and generate pre-emptive deterrence in different industry circles.
The OHCHR’s first progress report on the establishment of the database published in January 2018 does not provide clear guidance on these questions. It indicated that all business activities in settlements would contribute to the rampant human rights abuses caused by their existence and maintenance, but it does not explicate the basis for the strict liability standard that entails a prohibition on all such activities. Nor does it explain what modalities of business transactions are caught by this standard, which are not “remote and minimal.”
A robust approach to these normative questions is critical to the legitimacy of the UN’s decision to include a business on the database, as well as for convincing businesses and their home states of the value of this regulatory initiative.
Learning from Past Initiatives
Since 2013, 18 European government advisories have warned businesses of the economic, financial, and legal risks of conducting business in Israel’s settlements in occupied territory. This advice has coincided with a notable wave of decisions by companies in such countries as Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands to terminate contracts and abstain from undertaking activities in or related to the settlements. The database would provide authoritative guidance on the basis of such decisions in international law and further the urgency of accelerating such practices.
The regulatory logic that underpins the database is not unknown to international organizations. While the database may be the first of its kind established by the OHCHR, it is not the first UN initiative to monitor and inform publics about companies committing human rights violations. Previous efforts include the UN Center for Transnational Corporation’s monitoring and reporting on companies operating in apartheid South Africa, and a UN panel on the plunder of resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
These precedents also show the potential pitfalls of such initiatives: The South Africa list lacked support from member states, in part for being rolled out as part of the deliberation on sanctions – which came with concerns on their effects on innocent populations, including those whose liberation from apartheid was being sought. The DRC list failed to gain companies’ cooperation, highlighting the significance of clarifying the basis for legal obligations and constructing the right legal narratives about the purpose and function of such projects.
A key feature of the narrative surrounding the initiative in question is the potential for universalizing the standards set out and applied by the database to other ongoing cases of occupation maintained with the aim of forcibly acquiring or disposing of territory. This may include Western Sahara, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and, most recently, Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The much-needed guidance on the immitigable character of some business activity from the perspective of the business’ responsibilities to respect human rights may also be applied to other business environments characterized by structural violations of international law beyond cases of occupation, such as systemic abuses of labor rights, unlawful expropriation of land, and illicit exploitation of natural resources.
A further contribution of this mechanism is the protection it extends to domestic legal orders. Domestic laws that regulate corporate actors in their domicile countries are in most cases able to account for a business’ transnational activity by assigning consequences to certain rights, titles, and entitlement acquired by the company through its overseas activities. Such domestic regulation measures may not provide current victims with access to reparations, but they could provide a form of redress for future victims by challenging in a third state jurisdiction the involvement of companies in the structures that enable serious human rights abuses.
Support for the Database
To further the significance of the OHCHR’s work on this mechanism, and to gain support from third home states, Palestinian representatives should actively engage the UN, third states, and civil society to support this process. Key to this is the dissemination of accurate information about the database’s purpose, functions, and prospective contribution to international law enforcement. Supporting this initiative would offer guidance to business communities and investors on activities that may relate to a number of ongoing cases of occupation maintained with the aim of annexation or forcible secession.
Support from third states and the UN system is key to ensuring the continuation of the process and guaranteeing the integrity of the mechanism. European governments wary of the politics surrounding the database have noted that their support is conditional on the ability of the OHCHR to align its decision-making process with existing international standards. Some note explicitly that this caution is a result of the lack of clarity about the mandate for this mechanism and the UN’s failure so far to substantiate the link between, on the one hand, the international wrongs and the illegal situation to which such business actually contributes in all cases, and, on the other, the list of exemplary business activities in the 2013 UN fact-finding mission on settlements’ report, on which both HRC resolution 31/36 and the UN’s first progress report on the database’s establishment rely.
The OHCHR should elaborate and make public a robust normative framework that is accessible and understandable to business and non-expert stakeholders. This framework is necessary to substantiate the methodology and thresholds that it will use to decide on the inclusion of a company on the database. Since these features of the mechanism are critical to its proper function, their elaboration and publication should coincide with the timely publication of the names of the companies that have already been vetted. The UN’s surrender to political pressure and states’ reluctance to support this initiative risks creating an unacceptable precedent that brings the commitment of third states to implement the UNGP into disrepute.
Al-Shabaka Policy Member Valentina Azarova is a visiting academic at the Manchester International Law Centre (MILC), University of Manchester, and a strategic and legal adviser to the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN). Valentina received her PhD from the Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway. She was a co-founding member of the Al-Quds Bard College, Al-Quds University, where she directed and taught on the human rights program for five years (2009-2014). She also taught at Birzeit University’s Graduate Studies School (2014-2015). Since 2008, she has worked at HaMoked – Center for the Defence of the Individual; Al-Haq; and the MATTIN Group, and consulted a range of international and inter-governmental organisations on international law as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian context. Her research concerns the role of third parties and the contribution of domestic and transnational regulatory processes to the enforcement of international law. Her publications can be accessed here.
Via the Al Shakaba Palestinian Policy Network.
05/21/18 Report: Israel Continues Judaization in Jerusalem, Ethnic Cleansing in Area C
Four more filmmakers have joined a growing number of artists boycotting the Tel Aviv LGBT International Film Festival (TLVFest), in response to a Palestinian call.
Five artists had already cancelled their participation prior to the start of the festival, which runs between May 31 and June 9. With the latest cancellations, from two French directors and two from the Spanish state, a total of nine artists and filmmakers have boycotted the festival this year.
Despite the cancellations, TLVFest has refused to remove the filmmakers’ films from the festival’s schedule. In a statement to an Israeli daily, the festival director Yair Hochner said, “Whoever canceled, canceled. As far as we are concerned the festival will continue normally.”
French directors Océane Michel and Cyprien Vial had two scheduled screenings of their comedy film, “Embrasse-moi!”. Océane, who also makes his acting debut in the movie, posted on Facebook:
I wrote to the Festival two days ago but my message seems not to have been understood as my movie is still listed on the program.
I stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and express my total disagreement with Israel’s policy towards Palestine. For this reason, I refuse to take part in the pinkwashing strategy of the Israeli government. I want my movie withdrawn from the festival.
I apologise to the audience of the festival because civilians are equally victims of their government. I make an absolute distinction between Israeli citizens and their government, but violence against Palestinians, including LGBT people, by the army and the state forces me to withdraw from the program.
Likewise, Spanish director Dany Campos told Pinkwatching Israel – a collective of Palestinian queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) – that he is withdrawing his short, “Flaw,” from the Festival’s “B Shorts” category.
Director Fabia Castro announced her support for the cultural boycott of Israel in addition to withdrawing her short, “Tres”:
After learning about the very serious situation of oppression Palestinians live under, a regime of colonialism and apartheid, I refuse to let my art be used to whitewash Israel’s image. … I reject attempts by Israel to use the rights and struggles of LGBTQ+ people to normalize their image….
… Today, I add my voice to dozens of artists who, in the last few weeks, have joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement for the rights of the Palestinian people.”
Meanwhile Sylvain Coisne who had already announced the cancellation of his short, “Dylan, Dylan,” issued a statement on Facebook explaining his reasons for cancelling.
The wave of boycotts of TLVFest follows Israel’s latest massacres in Gaza, where Israeli forces killed more than 117 unarmed Palestinian protesters, including 13 children, and injured more than 13,000, leaving many with life-changing disabilities. Amnesty International has condemned Israel’s shoot-to-kill-or-maim policy and Human Rights Watch described the killings as “unlawful and calculated.”
Last year, TLVFest was hit with a similar wave of cancellations, including of South African director John Trengove.
Haneen Maikey, director of alQaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society, welcomed this year’s cancellations:
Palestinian queers feel inspired by this wave of international solidarity at a time when world governments continue to fuel Israel’s impunity and war crimes. The scale of cancellations for the second year in a row are yet another sign of how Israel’s pinkwashing strategy is failing.
There is a greater awareness worldwide about how Israel uses LGBTQ rights to justify its violent policies. Moreover, TLVFest’s management has shown its true face by declining to honor the requests from the directors to remove their work from the Festival’s program, they should do so now.
Hind Awwad, from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), commented:
We have noticed that many of the directors that were approached were not aware that their movies were scheduled to be shown at TLVFest. This is due to contractual arrangements with distributors who place the movies in international festivals without necessarily checking with filmmakers. Distributors should respect the wishes of directors who support the cultural boycott of Israel. The tide is changing for the support of Palestinian rights in the art world. The industry should reflect these changes.
The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) was initiated in 2004 to contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality. PACBI advocates for the boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, given their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law. Visit PACBI at https://bdsmovement.net/pacbi and follow them on Twitter @PACBI
Five artists had already cancelled their participation prior to the start of the festival, which runs between May 31 and June 9. With the latest cancellations, from two French directors and two from the Spanish state, a total of nine artists and filmmakers have boycotted the festival this year.
Despite the cancellations, TLVFest has refused to remove the filmmakers’ films from the festival’s schedule. In a statement to an Israeli daily, the festival director Yair Hochner said, “Whoever canceled, canceled. As far as we are concerned the festival will continue normally.”
French directors Océane Michel and Cyprien Vial had two scheduled screenings of their comedy film, “Embrasse-moi!”. Océane, who also makes his acting debut in the movie, posted on Facebook:
I wrote to the Festival two days ago but my message seems not to have been understood as my movie is still listed on the program.
I stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and express my total disagreement with Israel’s policy towards Palestine. For this reason, I refuse to take part in the pinkwashing strategy of the Israeli government. I want my movie withdrawn from the festival.
I apologise to the audience of the festival because civilians are equally victims of their government. I make an absolute distinction between Israeli citizens and their government, but violence against Palestinians, including LGBT people, by the army and the state forces me to withdraw from the program.
Likewise, Spanish director Dany Campos told Pinkwatching Israel – a collective of Palestinian queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) – that he is withdrawing his short, “Flaw,” from the Festival’s “B Shorts” category.
Director Fabia Castro announced her support for the cultural boycott of Israel in addition to withdrawing her short, “Tres”:
After learning about the very serious situation of oppression Palestinians live under, a regime of colonialism and apartheid, I refuse to let my art be used to whitewash Israel’s image. … I reject attempts by Israel to use the rights and struggles of LGBTQ+ people to normalize their image….
… Today, I add my voice to dozens of artists who, in the last few weeks, have joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement for the rights of the Palestinian people.”
Meanwhile Sylvain Coisne who had already announced the cancellation of his short, “Dylan, Dylan,” issued a statement on Facebook explaining his reasons for cancelling.
The wave of boycotts of TLVFest follows Israel’s latest massacres in Gaza, where Israeli forces killed more than 117 unarmed Palestinian protesters, including 13 children, and injured more than 13,000, leaving many with life-changing disabilities. Amnesty International has condemned Israel’s shoot-to-kill-or-maim policy and Human Rights Watch described the killings as “unlawful and calculated.”
Last year, TLVFest was hit with a similar wave of cancellations, including of South African director John Trengove.
Haneen Maikey, director of alQaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society, welcomed this year’s cancellations:
Palestinian queers feel inspired by this wave of international solidarity at a time when world governments continue to fuel Israel’s impunity and war crimes. The scale of cancellations for the second year in a row are yet another sign of how Israel’s pinkwashing strategy is failing.
There is a greater awareness worldwide about how Israel uses LGBTQ rights to justify its violent policies. Moreover, TLVFest’s management has shown its true face by declining to honor the requests from the directors to remove their work from the Festival’s program, they should do so now.
Hind Awwad, from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), commented:
We have noticed that many of the directors that were approached were not aware that their movies were scheduled to be shown at TLVFest. This is due to contractual arrangements with distributors who place the movies in international festivals without necessarily checking with filmmakers. Distributors should respect the wishes of directors who support the cultural boycott of Israel. The tide is changing for the support of Palestinian rights in the art world. The industry should reflect these changes.
The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) was initiated in 2004 to contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality. PACBI advocates for the boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, given their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law. Visit PACBI at https://bdsmovement.net/pacbi and follow them on Twitter @PACBI
27 may 2018
Morocco-based groups have launched calls for officially criminalizing all forms of normalization with the Israeli occupation.
A joint Saturday statement issued by pro-Palestine political bodies, trade unions, and youth organizations in Tangier, north of Morocco, said normalization with Israel amounts to an act of normalization with systematic state terrorism, occupation, and horrendous criminality.”
The statement strongly condemned the US President Donald Trump’s decision to transfer his country’s embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Occupied Jerusalem.
It dubbed such a move another chain in a series of plots aiming to liquidate the Palestinian cause and stir the wrath of one billion and a half Muslims around the globe.
The groups stressed their unconditional support for the Great March of Return protests, which they believe have come in response to Israel’s Trump-backed terrorism against the Palestinians and their holy sites.
The statement urged the Moroccan masses in Tangier to join a rally set to be staged on Sunday in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
A joint Saturday statement issued by pro-Palestine political bodies, trade unions, and youth organizations in Tangier, north of Morocco, said normalization with Israel amounts to an act of normalization with systematic state terrorism, occupation, and horrendous criminality.”
The statement strongly condemned the US President Donald Trump’s decision to transfer his country’s embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Occupied Jerusalem.
It dubbed such a move another chain in a series of plots aiming to liquidate the Palestinian cause and stir the wrath of one billion and a half Muslims around the globe.
The groups stressed their unconditional support for the Great March of Return protests, which they believe have come in response to Israel’s Trump-backed terrorism against the Palestinians and their holy sites.
The statement urged the Moroccan masses in Tangier to join a rally set to be staged on Sunday in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
25 may 2018
Israel and Palestine Director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), Omar Shakir, was given leave to remain in the country, yesterday, after the Jerusalem District Court blocked his deportation order.
Two weeks ago, Israel’s Ministry of Interior had ordered Shakir to leave Israel or be forcibly expelled on 24th May. The reason for this decision had been Shakir’s alleged support of the BDS campaign; he denied these claims and insists he has instead been targeted for his criticism of the Israeli government.
According to the PNN, yesterday’s last-minute reversal allows Shakir to stay until 2ndJuly, when a court hearing is scheduled to determine whether he can work long-term in the region. The Ministry of Interior’s order was frozen by Jerusalem District Court on the grounds that it had been based on ‘old facts’.
HRW announced the court’s verdict shortly after they had organised a press conference in Jerusalem, which was set to update journalists on the legal proceedings filed by Shakir and HRW to block his deportation order. In light of yesterday’s announcement, the news conference, due to be held today, shortly before Shakir left the country, has been cancelled.
This month has seen a crackdown on human rights officials by Israel. As well as Shakir’s mistreatment, The Mossawa Center’s director Jafar Farah was arrested last week in Haifa and his knee was broken by Israeli police during his incarceration.
By allowing Shakir to remain, Israel might hope to stem the tide of international criticism over its recent handling of human rights officials.
Two weeks ago, Israel’s Ministry of Interior had ordered Shakir to leave Israel or be forcibly expelled on 24th May. The reason for this decision had been Shakir’s alleged support of the BDS campaign; he denied these claims and insists he has instead been targeted for his criticism of the Israeli government.
According to the PNN, yesterday’s last-minute reversal allows Shakir to stay until 2ndJuly, when a court hearing is scheduled to determine whether he can work long-term in the region. The Ministry of Interior’s order was frozen by Jerusalem District Court on the grounds that it had been based on ‘old facts’.
HRW announced the court’s verdict shortly after they had organised a press conference in Jerusalem, which was set to update journalists on the legal proceedings filed by Shakir and HRW to block his deportation order. In light of yesterday’s announcement, the news conference, due to be held today, shortly before Shakir left the country, has been cancelled.
This month has seen a crackdown on human rights officials by Israel. As well as Shakir’s mistreatment, The Mossawa Center’s director Jafar Farah was arrested last week in Haifa and his knee was broken by Israeli police during his incarceration.
By allowing Shakir to remain, Israel might hope to stem the tide of international criticism over its recent handling of human rights officials.
A five-month grassroots campaign led by human rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri celebrated a win on Friday, May 18, 2018, when the Missouri legislative session ended, failing to pass legislation that would have denied state contracts worth over $10,000 to businesses and organizations boycotting Israel over its subjugation and dispossession of the Palestinian people.
The legislation was widely predicted to pass, enjoying widespread support by right-wing Missouri legislators with House Bill 2179 sponsored by GOP Speaker of the House Todd Richardson; and Senate Bill (SB) 849 co-sponsored by Majority Floor Leader, Republican Sen. Mike Kehoe, and Democratic Sen. Jill Schupp. Disgraced Gov. Eric Greitens helped prompt the legislative push, following his November trip to Israel, where he met with officials keen to punish supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights.
A growing number of celebrities, governments, and organizations worldwide are engaging in BDS in protest of Israel’s separate and unequal system of discrimination against Palestinians, which marked 70 years on May 15.
SB 849 stalled in March when staunch civil liberties advocate GOP Sen. Rob Schaaf filibustered the bill, introducing amendments that would add every country in the world to ensure Israel was not singled out for special protective treatment. Schaaf went through the list of nations alphabetically, describing in great detail exports and possible concerns with their policies. Two hours later, when he reached the Bahamas, Sen. Kehoe withdrew the bill from debate.
In a significant political upset, nearly 80% of Democratic House members present voted against HB 2179. Reps. Peter Merideth, Judy Morgan, Clem Smith, Brandon Ellington, Bruce Franks, Jr. (known for his leadership in protests against police brutality, including in the Ferguson uprisings), and others spoke strongly against the legislation, decrying Israel’s violence against Palestinians. Though HB 2179 passed through the overwhelmingly conservative House, HB 849 was never brought back to the Senate floor for debate, as Sen. Schaaf was at the ready to again mount a filibuster, this time with the likelihood of being joined by committed Democratic colleagues.
Israel has been widely criticized for war crimes and most recently killing more than 100 people and injuring thousands more as they demonstrated in Gaza for their internationally recognized refugee rights. Amidst the killings, the Trump administration began moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem last week, officially recognizing and actively participating in Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in violation of international law.
Citizens from across Missouri, representing Mid-Missourians for Justice in Palestine, Mid-Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation, St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee, Jewish Voice for Peace, American Muslims for Palestine, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and others in the Missouri Right to Boycott Coalition, lobbied lawmakers for months and testified against the bills during committee hearings.
Meanwhile, nongovernmental groups, including the Jewish Federation of St. Louis, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) joined right-wing legislators and Sen. Schupp in advocating for the bills, sparking criticism from progressive Jewish Missourians, including St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace.
The Massachusetts Right to Boycott Coalition scored a win against similar legislation in February. On constitutional grounds, the ACLU has legally challenged anti-boycott legislation in Kansas — where a federal judge temporarily blocked the law — as well as in Arizona. A legal memo [PDF] from the Center for Constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, Palestine Legal, and other legal and human rights organizations accused the Missouri legislation of imposing a “McCarthyite political litmus test” and lifted up the important role of boycotts throughout history from the Civil Rights Movement to divestment from apartheid South Africa.
For media inquiries and quotes, please contact:
Neveen Ayesh
St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee, American Muslims for Palestine
[email protected]
Anna Baltzer
US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace
[email protected]
Via the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR).
Also from USCPR: 04/25/18 US City’s Ban on Police Training in Israel Builds Momentum against Racist Violence
The legislation was widely predicted to pass, enjoying widespread support by right-wing Missouri legislators with House Bill 2179 sponsored by GOP Speaker of the House Todd Richardson; and Senate Bill (SB) 849 co-sponsored by Majority Floor Leader, Republican Sen. Mike Kehoe, and Democratic Sen. Jill Schupp. Disgraced Gov. Eric Greitens helped prompt the legislative push, following his November trip to Israel, where he met with officials keen to punish supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights.
A growing number of celebrities, governments, and organizations worldwide are engaging in BDS in protest of Israel’s separate and unequal system of discrimination against Palestinians, which marked 70 years on May 15.
SB 849 stalled in March when staunch civil liberties advocate GOP Sen. Rob Schaaf filibustered the bill, introducing amendments that would add every country in the world to ensure Israel was not singled out for special protective treatment. Schaaf went through the list of nations alphabetically, describing in great detail exports and possible concerns with their policies. Two hours later, when he reached the Bahamas, Sen. Kehoe withdrew the bill from debate.
In a significant political upset, nearly 80% of Democratic House members present voted against HB 2179. Reps. Peter Merideth, Judy Morgan, Clem Smith, Brandon Ellington, Bruce Franks, Jr. (known for his leadership in protests against police brutality, including in the Ferguson uprisings), and others spoke strongly against the legislation, decrying Israel’s violence against Palestinians. Though HB 2179 passed through the overwhelmingly conservative House, HB 849 was never brought back to the Senate floor for debate, as Sen. Schaaf was at the ready to again mount a filibuster, this time with the likelihood of being joined by committed Democratic colleagues.
Israel has been widely criticized for war crimes and most recently killing more than 100 people and injuring thousands more as they demonstrated in Gaza for their internationally recognized refugee rights. Amidst the killings, the Trump administration began moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem last week, officially recognizing and actively participating in Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in violation of international law.
Citizens from across Missouri, representing Mid-Missourians for Justice in Palestine, Mid-Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation, St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee, Jewish Voice for Peace, American Muslims for Palestine, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and others in the Missouri Right to Boycott Coalition, lobbied lawmakers for months and testified against the bills during committee hearings.
Meanwhile, nongovernmental groups, including the Jewish Federation of St. Louis, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) joined right-wing legislators and Sen. Schupp in advocating for the bills, sparking criticism from progressive Jewish Missourians, including St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace.
The Massachusetts Right to Boycott Coalition scored a win against similar legislation in February. On constitutional grounds, the ACLU has legally challenged anti-boycott legislation in Kansas — where a federal judge temporarily blocked the law — as well as in Arizona. A legal memo [PDF] from the Center for Constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, Palestine Legal, and other legal and human rights organizations accused the Missouri legislation of imposing a “McCarthyite political litmus test” and lifted up the important role of boycotts throughout history from the Civil Rights Movement to divestment from apartheid South Africa.
For media inquiries and quotes, please contact:
Neveen Ayesh
St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee, American Muslims for Palestine
[email protected]
Anna Baltzer
US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, St. Louis Jewish Voice for Peace
[email protected]
Via the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR).
Also from USCPR: 04/25/18 US City’s Ban on Police Training in Israel Builds Momentum against Racist Violence