Categories
Release

Q&A – Booking Sued for Laundering Profits from Israeli War Crimes in Palestine

DUTCH BELOW

1. What is the criminal complaint about?

The criminal complaint that the ELSC, Al-Haq, SOMO, and The Rights Forum filed is about Booking.com’s involvement in illegal Israeli settlements located in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). Our research shows that Booking.com profits from facilitating the rental of vacation homes built on land stolen from the indigenous Palestinian population. As those settlements are created and maintained by the commission of multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity,[1] Booking.com is in fact profiting from those international crimes. This is illegal according to Dutch criminal law, specifically article 1 (4) of the Dutch International Crimes Act (Wet Internationale Misdrijven). Booking.com is bringing proceeds of crime into the Dutch financial system – which means that the company is guilty of money laundering, the civil society organisations assert. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service has a duty to safeguard the integrity of the Dutch financial system by prosecuting this conduct. It is clear that Booking.com was aware of the legal risks involved and opted to continue offering accommodations in illegal settlements.

2. Why is it clear that Booking.com was aware of the risks of their operations in the OPT?

Many reports by human rights organisations (such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) have been published on the problematic nature of the tourism industry’s involvement in illegal Israeli settlements. Booking.com has been explicitly mentioned in multiple of these reports and the organisations have been in direct contact with the company about their concerns. Grassroots campaigns have also been launched against Booking.com to ‘stop profit from war crimes’.[2]

Furthermore, Booking.com has been included in the UN database on companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements, which is a list compiled by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights of companies that have direct or indirect links to the settlements. The publication of this database in February 2020 was widely covered by Dutch and international media. The database was updated in June 2023.[3] Booking.com was included in both publications and was directly approached by the UN prior to its inclusion on the list.

Settlements are illegal under international law, harmful to any prospect of justice and peace, the cause of myriad human rights violations, and their construction constitutes a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such, the Israeli settlement construction is being investigated by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. European governments explicitly warn companies under their jurisdiction about the legal risks stemming from operating in illegal Israeli settlements. The Dutch government ‘discourages’ companies from doing business in them,[4] and explicitly puts the responsibility to conform to the law on companies themselves.

3. What do we want to achieve by filing this criminal complaint?

With this criminal complaint, we aim to end Booking.com’s involvement in international crimes in the OPT. This involvement is problematic in many ways:

  • First, as highlighted in our complaint, the integrity of the Dutch financial system is compromised as revenue with a criminal origin (proceeds of crime) is transferred into the Netherlands as if it were legitimate earnings. This is exactly what the criminal provision prohibiting money laundering aims to prevent.
  • Besides violating Dutch criminal provisions, Booking.com’s involvement in Israeli violations of international law also contravenes widely recognised business and human rights (BHR) norms, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which the company explicitly states to respect.
  • More importantly, the company’s operations are extremely harmful to the occupied Palestinian population, which is protected by the provisions of international humanitarian law that the Israeli state violates (violations that Booking.com profits from). Palestinians are being forcibly displaced to make room for settlements, their natural resources are being stolen and used to supply settlements, they face numerous forms of discrimination to maintain segregation between the settler population and the indigenous Palestinian communities, their right to freedom of movement is greatly restricted, and they face growing violence by settlers living close to Palestinian communities. This regime of racial domination that Palestinians face and to which the settlements are an integral part, is part of Israel’s apartheid regime. 
  • The appropriation of Palestinian territory for settlements, amounts to a de facto annexation of territory, and a denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
  • By conducting ‘business as usual’ in illegal Israeli settlements, Booking.com contributes to normalising the war crimes and crimes against humanity that established them and provides an incentive for the Israeli state to continue committing them.

With this complaint, we also aim to address and end the climate of corporate impunity that surrounds profit from and complicity in Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law. Israeli settlements constitute grave violations of international law, are part of Israel’s settler-colonial policies, form an integral part of a system of racial domination that amounts to apartheid, and have severe consequences for the indigenous Palestinian population. While the International Court of Justice has warned of ‘plausible’ acts of genocide being committed against Palestinians in Gaza, repression and violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has reached unprecedented levels. In April 2024, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention published an “Active Genocide Alert Condemning Ongoing Violence in the West Bank”, stating that “the Israeli military and far-right settlers have used the cover of war to conduct continuous attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, often leading to death and forced displacement”.[5]

Yet, companies profiting from those violations hardly face legal scrutiny. Companies escaping accountability for involvement in and profiting from international crimes provides an incentive for other states to create economies based on such international crimes in other contexts (e.g. the occupation of the Western Sahara, the occupation of Eastern Ukraine).

It is time to expose and address the extent of the harm that operations of companies like Booking.com impose on the indigenous Palestinian population.

4. What would constitute a success for the co-filers? If they succeed in holding Booking.com criminally accountable, what does it mean in practice and what would be the steps to get there?

The main aim is to address the problematic nature of Booking.com’s involvement in and profiting from the war crimes that established the settlements and the violations of Palestinians’ rights that are caused by the settlement enterprise.

A success will be the realisation of corporate criminal accountability for Booking.com for this conduct. Such accountability can come in the form of a criminal investigation being initiated, an indictment being issued by the prosecutor, and, ultimately, a conviction by a criminal court. Criminal procedures such as this one can be lengthy and could span multiple years. Booking.com could be fined, and the individuals who are responsible for this conduct could face personal liability. Any of these measures would provide a strong deterrent to companies operating in, or planning to operate in, illegal Israeli settlements.

A long-term success would be a general acceptance by states and businesses that profiting from illegal Israeli settlements is unlawful and should be actively prosecuted by law enforcement authorities.

5. Did the co-filers speak to Booking.com about their concerns?

Respected human rights groups – including Al-Haq, UN officials, and activists have been raising this issue with the company since at least 2018.[6] These conversations have yielded no results and delivered absolutely nothing to Palestinians, who are continuously losing more land while Booking.com makes a profit from their property.

Booking.com seemed to take a step in the right direction in the summer of 2022, when what appeared to be proposals of the company to add a human rights-related warning label to settlement listings were leaked to international media. However, after this was reported and Israel’s Minister of Tourism vowed to put pressure on the company to reverse its decision, a generic warning label was added for all listings in the West Bank – including Palestinian accommodations – saying the area “may be considered conflict-affected” by the customer’s government and the label made no mention of the illegality of settlements or human rights concerns. This could negatively affect tourism to Palestine and again confirmed that Booking.com will not cease profiting from war crimes without legal intervention.

In early May 2024, SOMO contacted Booking.com, informing the company about research findings regarding its involvement in Israeli settlements and the legal implications thereof, offering the company a right of reply. In the communication, SOMO asserted that Booking.com’s profiting from listings in Israeli settlements amounts to money laundering under Dutch law. Booking.com responded to SOMO stating that it “wholeheartedly disagree[s]” with SOMO’s “allegations of illegal activity”. It also suggested that international law does not apply to corporate actors, and that they are only bound by domestic laws.

In its response, Booking does not engage with the allegations of money laundering. Instead, it claims to be “in full compliance” with Dutch laws, without providing further reasoning. It claims that there are no laws prohibiting listings in Israeli settlements, and rather that U.S. laws would prohibit Booking.com from divesting from Israeli settlements. The response also makes general references to Booking.com’s Human Rights Statement and how the company “appropriately balance[s] the various risks and human rights concerns regarding disputed [emphasis added] Israeli settlements in the West Bank”.

6. Why did you target Booking.com in particular? Are there not many other Online Tourism Agencies (OTAs) that are doing the same?

Booking.com is a large multinational that operates around the world and offers more than 28 million accommodation listings. It is one of the leading companies in its sector. If Booking.com ends its involvement in illegal Israeli settlements, it could have a large effect on other companies, potentially leading to significant changes in the climate of impunity currently surrounding business in settlements in the OPT.

In its official statements,[7] Booking.com states that it is committed to protecting local communities in occupied territories and vows to conduct heightened due diligence on listings there. International law and human rights norms are clear: Israeli settlements in the OPT are illegal and it is impossible to operate in them without breaching business and human rights (BHR) standards and international law.

We are engaging in strategic litigation, meaning that with this complaint we aim to provide conditions for social, political, or legal change, based on the needs of those primarily affected by the addressed injustice. To Palestinians, Booking.com exemplifies corporate profit from violations of their rights, without any accountability. If Booking.com faces true criminal accountability, then it will not only push them to stop their harmful and illegal policies, but other companies too.

7. If Booking.com is following the laws in force in Israel, how can they be held liable for violating Dutch criminal law?

Booking.com B.V. is a Dutch company, headquartered in the Netherlands. Its revenue is registered in the Netherlands and the company pays taxes to the Dutch tax authorities. As a Dutch company, it has to abide by Dutch laws and regulations. Dutch criminal law specifies that the acts committed in the OPT by Israel to establish the settlements are international crimes. By knowingly profiting from these crimes, Booking.com is in violation of Dutch criminal law. It does not matter for this analysis whether or not that conduct is legal according to the state that commits the crimes.

8. Booking.com itself is not committing any war crimes, it simply facilitates the rental of vacation homes. Why is their conduct in settlements problematic?

The conduct of Booking.com in the OPT is problematic for three main reasons.

Firstly, their involvement in the illegal Israeli settlement enterprise contributes to making the settlements economically sustainable. As tourism generates income for the settlement industry, Booking.com’s conduct contributes to the settlement economy and makes it attractive for settlers to colonise more Palestinian land.

Secondly, the company legitimises the settlements – which are widely condemned as flagrant violations of international law, a serious obstacle to justice in Palestine, and a main driver of various violations of Palestinian’s rights – by acting as if it is ‘business as usual’ and by attracting foreign tourists to them. In this way, the war crimes and crimes against humanity these settlements are based on are effectively whitewashed by Booking.com.

Thirdly, not only the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but also profiting from them is explicitly illegal under Dutch law. This was done not only to protect the integrity of the Dutch financial system, but also to frustrate the commission of the principal crimes. By profiting from and exacerbating the system of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Booking.com is facilitating and encouraging their commission.

9. What is the amount of money laundered by Booking.com?

As it is difficult for the co-filing organisations to gain an insight into the finances of Booking.com, it is not possible to know the exact amount of money that entered the Dutch financial system from illegal Israeli settlements. However, in cooperation with international forensic accountants, we were able to make a conservative estimate of the amount that Booking.com has allegedly laundered since it started listing stolen real estate in the OPT. This estimate is based on publicly available information and corporate filings, and shows that the laundered revenue likely amounts to at least one million euros. Details regarding the precise amount can easily be obtained from Booking.com by Dutch law enforcement agencies.

10. Why is this action relevant/ necessary now?

This case is being brought after years of research into Booking.com’s activities in illegal Israeli settlements. We filed this legal complaint as part of a longer trajectory of actions on businesses profiting from abuse in the OPT; work that started before Oct 7 2023, and which we consider has to be pursued now, alongside all of our other collective efforts. Ethnic cleansing and settler violence in the West Bank are only increasing after 7 October, showing the importance of addressing corporate involvement in the settlement economy.

This case was launched with the support of the PIPD (Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy). 


[1] These war crimes include, but are not limited to: the unlawful appropriation of property of the adversary, criminalized in arts. 5 (1) (d) and 5 (5) (t) of the Dutch International Crimes Act; the transfer of civilians into occupied territory, criminalized in arts. 5 (2) (d) (i) and 5 (5) (d) of the ICA.

[2] See the BDS NL (DocP) campaign against Booking.com: https://bdsnederland.nl/stop-profit-from-war-crimes-hoe-booking-com-profiteert-van-israelische-apartheid/; Extinction Rebellion Nederland, XR Justice Now! demonstreert bij hoofdkantoor Booking.com en nodigt medewerkers uit om mee te doen, 13 March 2024, available at: XR Justice Now! demonstreert bij hoofdkantoor Booking.com en nodigt medewerkers uit om mee te doen · Extinction Rebellion Nederland

[3] See the last updated version of the UN database here: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session31/database-hrc3136/23-06-30-Update-israeli-settlement-opt-database-hrc3136.pdf.

[4] De situatie in het Midden-Oosten, “Brief van de Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken”, Kamerstukken II 2012–2013, 23 432, nr. 348, p. 4, available at: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-23432-348.html.

[5] Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Israel is Committing Genocide across Palestine:
Active Genocide Alert Condemning Ongoing Violence in the West Bank
, 8 April 2024, available at: Israel is Committing Genocide across Palestine: Active Genocide Alert Condemning Ongoing Violence in the West Bank (lemkininstitute.com)

[6] See the letter sent by Al Haq, The Rights Forum and other organisations to Booking.com in 2018: Press Release: Al-Haq and Others Send Letter to Booking.com (alhaq.org); See The Rights Forum, Booking.com: toeristische rader in Israëlische oorlogsmisdaad, 30 December 2021, available at: Booking.com: toeristische rader in Israëlische oorlogsmisdaad – The Rights Forum

[7] See Booking.com 2022 Human Rights Statement, available at: https://www.bookingholdings.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BHI-Human-Rights-Statement-2022.04.14.pdf, at p. 6; see AT5, Oproep aan Pride-organisator: heroverweeg samenwerking met hoofdsponsor Booking, 6 March 2024.


Q&A – Aangifte tegen Booking.com wegens witwassen van winsten uit Israëlische oorlogsmisdaden in Palestina  

1. Waar gaat de aangifte over?

De aangifte die het ELSC, Al-Haq, SOMO en The Rights Forum hebben ingediend, gaat over de betrokkenheid van Booking.com bij illegale Israëlische nederzettingen in bezet Palestijns gebied. Uit ons onderzoek blijkt dat Booking.com winst maakt door de verhuur van vakantiehuizen die zijn gebouwd op grond die is gestolen van de inheemse Palestijnse bevolking. Aangezien die nederzettingen worden gecreëerd en onderhouden door het plegen van meerdere oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid[1](1), maakt Booking.com feitelijk winst uit deze internationale misdrijven. Dit is volgens het Nederlandse strafrecht illegaal, specifiek onder artikel 1 (4) van de Nederlandse Wet internationale misdrijven. Booking.com brengt de opbrengsten van misdrijven binnen in het Nederlandse financiële systeem – wat betekent dat het bedrijf schuldig is aan witwassen, zo stellen de maatschappelijke organisaties. Het Nederlandse Openbaar Ministerie heeft de plicht de integriteit van het Nederlandse financiële systeem te waarborgen door deze praktijk strafrechtelijk te onderzoeken en te vervolgen. Het is duidelijk dat Booking.com zich bewust was van de juridische risico’s van dit handelen en ervoor koos om accommodaties aan te blijven bieden in illegale nederzettingen.

2. Waarom is het duidelijk dat Booking.com op de hoogte was van de risico’s van hun activiteiten in bezet Palestijns gebied?

Er zijn veel rapporten van mensenrechtenorganisaties (zoals Amnesty International en Human Rights Watch) gepubliceerd over de problematische aard van de betrokkenheid van de toerisme-industrie bij illegale Israëlische nederzettingen. Booking.com is expliciet genoemd in meerdere van deze rapporten en de organisaties hebben rechtstreeks contact gehad met het bedrijf over hun zorgen. Er zijn ook grassroots-campagnes gelanceerd tegen Booking.com om ‘winst uit oorlogsmisdaden te stoppen’.[2]

Bovendien is Booking.com opgenomen in de VN-database van bedrijven die actief zijn in illegale Israëlische nederzettingen, een lijst samengesteld door de Hoge Commissaris voor de Mensenrechten van de VN, van bedrijven die directe of indirecte banden hebben met de nederzettingen. De publicatie van deze database in februari 2020 kreeg uitgebreide aandacht van Nederlandse en internationale media. De database werd bijgewerkt in juni 2023[3]. Booking.com werd in beide publicaties opgenomen en werd rechtstreeks benaderd door de VN voordat het op de lijst werd geplaatst.

Nederzettingen zijn illegaal volgens het internationaal recht, schadelijk voor elk perspectief op rechtvaardigheid en vrede, de oorzaak van talloze schendingen van mensenrechten, en hun aanleg en uitbreiding komt voort uit een aantal oorlogsmisdrijven en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid. Als zodanig wordt de bouw van Israëlische nederzettingen in bezet Palestijns gebied onderzocht door het Internationaal Strafhof in Den Haag. Europese regeringen waarschuwen bedrijven vallende onder hun jurisdictie expliciet voor de juridische risico’s die voortvloeien uit het opereren in illegale Israëlische nederzettingen. De Nederlandse regering ‘ontmoedigt’ bedrijven om zaken te doen in deze nederzettingen,[4] en legt expliciet de verantwoordelijkheid om zich aan de wet te houden bij de bedrijven zelf.

3. Wat willen we bereiken met het indienen van deze aangifte?

Middels deze aangifte streven we ernaar om de betrokkenheid van Booking.com bij internationale misdrijven in bezet Palestijns gebied te beëindigen. Deze betrokkenheid is op vele manieren problematisch:

  • Ten eerste, zoals benadrukt in onze aangifte, wordt de integriteit van het Nederlandse financiële systeem aangetast doordat inkomsten met een criminele oorsprong (opbrengsten van misdrijven) naar Nederland worden overgebracht alsof het legitieme verdiensten zijn. Dit is precies wat de strafrechtelijke bepaling ter verbieding van witwassen beoogt te voorkomen.
  • Naast het overtreden van Nederlandse strafrechtelijke bepalingen, druist de betrokkenheid van Booking.com bij Israëlische schendingen van het internationaal recht ook in tegen algemeen erkende normen op het gebied van bedrijfsleven en mensenrechten (Business and Human Rights, BHR), zoals de UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights en de OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, waarvan het bedrijf expliciet zegt deze te respecteren.
  • Belangrijker nog is dat de activiteiten van het bedrijf bijdragen aan extreem veel leed en onrecht jegens de bezette Palestijnse bevolking, in strijd met bepalingen van het internationaal humanitair recht dat met voeten wordt getreden door  Israël (schendingen waar Booking.com van profiteert).
  • Palestijnen worden gedwongen te verhuizen om plaats te maken voor nederzettingen, hun natuurlijke grondstoffen worden gestolen en gebruikt om nederzettingen te voorzien, ze worden geconfronteerd met talrijke vormen van discriminatie om segregatie tussen de kolonistenbevolking en de inheemse Palestijnse gemeenschappen te handhaven, hun recht op vrijheid van beweging wordt sterk beperkt, en ze worden geconfronteerd met toenemend geweld door kolonisten, onder bescherming van soldaten, die dicht bij Palestijnse gemeenschappen wonen.
  • Dit regime van raciale overheersing waarmee Palestijnen worden geconfronteerd en waartoe de nederzettingen een integraal onderdeel vormen, maakt deel uit van het apartheidsregime van Israël.
  • De toe-eigening van Palestijns grondgebied voor nederzettingen komt neer op een de facto annexatie van grondgebied en een ontkenning van de onvervreemdbare rechten van het Palestijnse volk op zelfbeschikking.
  • Door ‘business as usual’ te voeren in illegale Israëlische nederzettingen draagt Booking.com bij aan het normaliseren van de oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid waarmee de nederzettingen tot stand zijn gebrachten biedt het een economische prikkel voor de Israëlische staat om ze voort te zetten.

Met deze aangifte streven we er ook naar om het klimaat van straffeloosheid aan te pakken waarbinnen bedrijven winst kunnen halen uit en medeplichtig kunnen zijn aan de schendingen van het internationaal humanitair recht door Israël. Israëlische nederzettingen vormen ernstige schendingen van het internationaal recht, maken deel uit van het koloniale beleid van Israël, vormen een integraal onderdeel van een systeem van raciale overheersing dat neerkomt op apartheid, en hebben ernstige consequenties voor de inheemse Palestijnse bevolking. Terwijl het Internationaal Gerechtshof heeft gewaarschuwd voor een ‘plausibele’ genocide tegen Palestijnen in Gaza, heeft onderdrukking en geweld tegen Palestijnen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever ongekende niveaus bereikt. In april 2024 publiceerde het Lemkin Instituut voor Genocidepreventie een “Actieve Genocide-Waarschuwing die het Voortdurende Geweld op de Westelijke Jordaanoever Veroordeelt”, waarin staat dat “het Israëlische leger en extreemrechtse kolonisten de dekking van de oorlog hebben gebruikt om voortdurende aanvallen uit te voeren op Palestijnen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, vaak resulterend in dood en gedwongen ontheemding”.[5]

Toch worden bedrijven die profiteren van deze schendingen en ze faciliteren nauwelijks juridisch onderzocht. Bedrijven die ontsnappen aan verantwoordelijkheid voor betrokkenheid bij en profiteren van internationale misdrijven biedt andere staten een stimulans om economieën te creëren op basis van dergelijke internationale misdrijven in andere contexten (bijv. de bezetting van de Westelijke Sahara, de bezetting van Oost-Oekraïne).

Het is tijd om de omvang van het schadelijke effect dat de activiteiten van bedrijven zoals Booking.com hebben op de inheemse Palestijnse bevolking bloot te leggen en aan te pakken.

4. Wat zou succes betekenen voor de mede-indieners? Als het lukt om Booking.com strafrechtelijk verantwoordelijk te houden, wat betekent dat in de praktijk en wat zijn de stappen om daar te komen?

Het belangrijkste doel is om de problematische aard van de betrokkenheid van Booking.com bij en het profiteren van de oorlogsmisdrijven onderliggend aan de nederzettingen te adresseren, evenals de schendingen van de rechten van Palestijnen die worden veroorzaakt door de nederzettingen.

Een succes zou inhouden dat Booking.com strafrechtelijk verantwoordelijk wordt gehouden. Deze verantwoordelijkheid kan zich om te beginnen uiten in de vorm van een strafrechtelijk onderzoek dat wordt gestart, een aanklacht die wordt uitgevaardigd door het OM, en uiteindelijk een veroordeling door een strafrechter. Dergelijke strafprocedures kunnen langdurig zijn en meerdere jaren beslaan. Booking.com kan beboet worden, en de personen die verantwoordelijk zijn voor dit beleid kunnen hoofdelijk aansprakelijk worden gesteld. Elk van deze procedurele stappen en maatregelen zou een krachtig afschrikmiddel vormen voor bedrijven die actief zijn in, of van plan zijn om actief te worden in illegale Israëlische nederzettingen.

Een langetermijnsucces zou zijn dat staten en bedrijven algemeen erkennen dat het profiteren van illegale Israëlische nederzettingen onwettig is en actief vervolgd moet worden door handhavingsautoriteiten.

5. Hebben de mede-indieners met Booking.com gesproken over hun zorgen?

Gerespecteerde mensenrechtenorganisaties – waaronder Al-Haq, VN-functionarissen, The Rights Forum en activisten – hebben dit probleem al sinds 2018 bij het bedrijf aangekaart.[6] Deze gesprekken hebben geen resultaat gehad en hebben absoluut niets opgeleverd voor de Palestijnen, die voortdurend meer land verliezen terwijl Booking.com winst maakt met hun gestolen eigendom.

Booking.com leek een kleine stap in de goede richting te zetten in de zomer van 2022, toen vermeende plannen van het bedrijf om een waarschuwingsetiket met betrekking tot mensenrechten aan het aanbod in nederzettingen toe te voegen, uitlekten naar internationale media. Echter, nadat dit bekend werd en de Israëlische Minister van Toerisme zwoor druk uit te oefenen op het bedrijf om zijn beslissing terug te draaien, werd door Booking.com een generiek waarschuwingslabel toegevoegd voor alle accommodaties in de nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever – inclusief Palestijnse accommodaties – waarop stond dat het gebied door de regering van de klant als “conflictgebied beschouwd zou kunnen worden”, zonder dat daarbij melding werd gemaakt van de onwettigheid van de nederzettingen of de zorgen over mensenrechten. Dit zou het toerisme naar Palestina negatief kunnen beïnvloeden en bevestigde opnieuw dat Booking.com niet zal stoppen met het profiteren van oorlogsmisdrijven zonder juridische interventie.

Begin mei 2024 heeft SOMO contact opgenomen met Booking.com en informeerde het bedrijf over de onderzoeksresultaten met betrekking tot diens betrokkenheid bij Israëlische nederzettingen en de juridische implicaties daarvan, waarbij het bedrijf recht op antwoord kreeg. In dit ‘company review request’ stelde SOMO dat de winsten door Booking.com op accommodaties in Israëlische nederzettingen volgens de Nederlandse wet neerkomen op het witwassen van geld. Booking.com reageerde op SOMO en verklaarde dat het “het volledig oneens is” met de “beschuldigingen van illegale activiteiten” van SOMO. Het bedrijf suggereert ook dat het internationaal recht niet van toepassing is op actoren uit het bedrijfsleven, en dat zij alleen gebonden zijn aan binnenlandse wetten.

In haar reactie gaat Booking niet in op de beschuldiging van het witwassen van geld. In plaats daarvan stelt zij “volledig in overeenstemming” te zijn met de Nederlandse wetgeving, zonder verdere motivering. Het beweert dat er geen wetten zijn die vermeldingen in Israëlische nederzettingen verbieden, en dat Amerikaanse wetten Booking.com zouden verbieden om uit Israëlische nederzettingen te desinvesteren. Het antwoord bevat ook algemene verwijzingen naar de Mensenrechtenverklaring (Human Rights Statement) van Booking.com en hoe het bedrijf “de verschillende risico’s en mensenrechtenkwesties met betrekking tot betwiste [nadruk toegevoegd] Israëlische nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever op de juiste manier in evenwicht brengt”.

6. Waarom is specifiek Booking.com gekozen? Zijn er niet veel andere online toerismeplatforms die hetzelfde doen?

Booking.com is een grote multinational die wereldwijd opereert en meer dan 28 miljoen accommodaties aanbiedt. Het is een van de toonaangevende bedrijven in zijn sector. Als Booking.com zijn betrokkenheid bij illegale Israëlische nederzettingen beëindigt, zou dit een grote invloed kunnen hebben op andere bedrijven in de sector, mogelijk leidend tot aanzienlijke veranderingen in het klimaat van straffeloosheid dat momenteel heerst rond zakendoen in nederzettingen in bezet Palestijns gebied.

In haar officiële verklaringen[7] heeft Booking.com zich gecommitteerd aan het beschermen van lokale gemeenschappen in bezette gebieden en belooft zij een verhoogde zorgvuldigheid (‘enhanced due diligence’) te hanteren bij vermeldingen daar. Internationaal recht en mensenrechtennormen zijn duidelijk: Israëlische nederzettingen in het bezet Palestijns gebied zijn illegaal en het is onmogelijk om er actief te zijn zonder mensenrechtenverplichtingen voor bedrijven of het internationaal recht te schenden.

We zijn bezig met een strategische procedure, wat betekent dat we met deze aangifte de voorwaarden willen scheppen voor sociale, politieke of juridische verandering, gebaseerd op de behoeften van degenen die primair worden getroffen door het betreffende onrecht. Voor Palestijnen belichaamt Booking.com winst van bedrijven ten koste van schendingen van hun rechten, zonder daarvoor enige verantwoording af te leggen. Als Booking.com daadwerkelijk strafrechtelijk verantwoordelijkheid moet afleggen, zal dit niet alleen Booking.com aanzetten om zijn schadelijke en illegale praktijken te stoppen, maar ook andere bedrijven.

7. Als Booking.com de geldende wetten in Israël naleeft, hoe kan het bedrijf dan aansprakelijk worden gehouden voor het schenden van het Nederlandse strafrecht?

Booking.com B.V. is een Nederlands bedrijf, gevestigd in Nederland. Haar omzet is geregistreerd in Nederland en het bedrijf betaalt belasting aan de Nederlandse belastingautoriteiten. Als Nederlands bedrijf moet het zich houden aan de Nederlandse wet-en regelgeving. Het Nederlandse strafrecht bepaalt dat de handelingen die door Israël in bezet Palestijns gebied worden gepleegd om de nederzettingen op te richten, internationale misdrijven zijn. Door opzettelijk winst te behalen uit deze misdrijven, overtreedt Booking.com het Nederlandse strafrecht. Voor deze analyse maakt het niet uit of dat beleid al dan niet wettelijk is volgens de staat die de misdrijven pleegt.

8. Booking.com zelf pleegt geen oorlogsmisdrijven, het faciliteert simpelweg de verhuur van vakantiehuizen. Waarom is hun beleid in nederzettingen problematisch?

Het beleid van Booking.com in het bezet Palestijns gebied is om drie hoofdredenen problematisch. Ten eerste draagt hun betrokkenheid bij de illegale Israëlische nederzettingen bij aan het economisch bestendig en aantrekkelijk maken van de nederzettingen. Omdat toerisme inkomen genereert voor de nederzettingen, draagt het beleid van Booking.com bij aan de nederzettings­economie en dat maakt het aantrekkelijk voor kolonisten om meer Palestijns land te koloniseren.

Ten tweede normaliseert het bedrijf de nederzettingen – die breed veroordeeld worden als flagrante schendingen van het internationaal recht, een ernstig obstakel voor gerechtigheid in Palestina, en een belangrijke drijvende kracht achter diverse schendingen van de rechten van Palestijnen – door te handelen alsof het ‘business as usual’ is en door buitenlandse toeristen aan te trekken.

Ten derde is niet alleen het plegen van oorlogsmisdrijven en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid, maar ook het profiteren ervan expliciet illegaal gemaakt door de Nederlandse wetgever. Dit werd niet alleen gedaan om de integriteit van het Nederlandse financiële systeem te beschermen, maar ook om de uitvoering van deze misdrijven te voorkomen. Door ervan te profiteren, en binnen een systeem van oorlogsmisdrijven en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid actief te zijn, faciliteert en moedigt Booking.com het plegen van deze misdrijven aan.

9. Wat is het bedrag dat door Booking.com is witgewassen?

Aangezien het voor de organisaties die aangifte doen moeilijk is om inzicht te krijgen in de financiën van Booking.com, is het niet mogelijk om met zekerheid het exacte bedrag te achterhalen dat vanuit illegale Israëlische nederzettingen in het Nederlandse financiële systeem is terechtgekomen. Echter, in samenwerking met internationale forensische accountants, zijn we erin geslaagd om een conservatieve schatting te maken van het bedrag dat Booking.com heeft witgewassen sinds het begon met het vermelden van gestolen onroerend goed in het bezet Palestijns gebied. Deze schatting is gebaseerd op publiekelijk beschikbare informatie en bedrijfsdocumenten, en laat zien dat het gewassen bedrag waarschijnlijk minstens één miljoen euro bedraagt. Details over het exacte bedrag kunnen eenvoudig worden verkregen van Booking.com door de Nederlandse autoriteiten.

10. Waarom is deze actie nu relevant en noodzakelijk?

Deze zaak wordt gestart na jarenlang onderzoek naar de activiteiten van Booking.com in illegale Israëlische nederzettingen. We hebben deze aangifte ingediend als onderdeel van een langer traject van acties tegen bedrijven die profiteren van schendingen in bezet Palestijns gebied. Een traject dat vóór 7 oktober 2023 begon en waarvan wij vinden dat het moet worden voortgezet, naast al onze andere inspanningen. Etnische zuivering en kolonistengeweld op de Westelijke Jordaanoever nemen na 7 oktober alleen maar toe, wat het belang aantoont van het aanpakken van de betrokkenheid van bedrijven bij de nederzettingeneconomie.


[1] Deze oorlogsmisdaden omvatten, maar zijn niet beperkt tot: de onwettige toe-eigening van eigendom van de tegenpartij, strafbaar gesteld in art. 5 (1) (d) en 5 (5) (t) van de Nederlandse Wet Internationale Misdrijven (Wim); het overbrengen van burgers naar bezet gebied, strafbaar gesteld in art. 5 (2) (d) (i) en 5 (5) (d) van de Wim.

[2] Zie de BDS NL (DocP) campagne tegen Booking.com: https://bdsnederland.nl/stop-profit-from-war-crimes-hoe-booking-com-profiteert-van-israelische-apartheid/; Extinction Rebellion Nederland, XR Justice Now! demonstreert bij hoofdkantoor Booking.com en nodigt medewerkers uit om mee te doen, 13 maart 2024, beschikbaar op: XR Justice Now! demonstreert bij hoofdkantoor Booking.com en nodigt medewerkers uit om mee te doen · Extinction Rebellion Nederland. Al in 2019 werd Booking.com door een consortium gewezen op zijn verplichtingen, zie: https://rightsforum.org/waar-blijft-de-reactie-van-booking-com/

[3] Zie de laatst geüpdatet versie van de VN database: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session31/database-hrc3136/23-06-30-Update-israeli-settlement-opt-database-hrc3136.pdf.

[4] De situatie in het Midden-Oosten, “Brief van de Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken”, Kamerstukken II 2012–2013, 23 432, nr. 348, p. 4, beschikbaar op:: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-23432-348.html.

[5] Lemkin Instituut voor Genocidepreventie, Israël pleegt genocide in heel Palestina: Actieve genocide-waarschuwing waarin het voortdurende geweld op de Westelijke Jordaanoever wordt veroordeeld, 8 april 2024, beschikbaar op: Israël pleegt genocide in heel Palestina: Actieve genocide-waarschuwing waarin het voortdurende geweld op de Westelijke Jordaanoever wordt veroordeeld (lemkininstitute.com)

[6] Brief die in 2018 is gestuurd door Al Haq, The Rights Forum en andere organisaties naar Booking.com: Press Release: Al-Haq and Others Send Letter to Booking.com (alhaq.org); Zie The Rights Forum, Booking.com: toeristische rader in Israëlische oorlogsmisdaden, 30 december 2021, beschikbaar via: Booking.com: toeristische rader in Israëlische oorlogsmisdaad – The Rights Forum. Zie ook: The Rights Forum, Waar blijft de reactie van Booking?, 15 februari 2019, beschikbaar via:  https://rightsforum.org/waar-blijft-de-reactie-van-booking-com/ 

[7] Zie: Booking.com 2022 Human Rights Statement, beschikbaar op https://www.bookingholdings.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BHI-Human-Rights-Statement-2022.04.14.pdf, op p.6; zie AT5, Oproep aan Pride-organisator: heroverweeg samenwerking met hoofdsponsor Booking, 6 March 2024.

Categories
Release

Antisemitism, Palestine and academic freedom. Interview with the European Legal Support Center

The ELSC gave an interview to Dr Sevgi Doğan for Security Praxis blog about the impact of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism on academic freedom and unfounded allegations of antisemitism in academia. Read it below.

Original publication on Security Praxis blog: https://securitypraxis.eu/antisemitism-palestine-academic-freedom-interview-elsc/

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) adopted a working definition of antisemitism of 2016 to address the rise in hate and discrimination against Jews. It has been formally adopted by the UK government (2016) and, according to IHRA’s list, by many others, and several university administrations in the United States and the UK.

In some cases the definition has been instrumentalised using the accusation of antisemitism to discredit academics because of their pro-Palestinian stance. Regarding this issue, we interview Giovanni Fassina and Alice Garcia from the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) which is an independent legal organization that provides free legal advice and assistance to advocates for Palestinian rights, and that supports the Palestine solidarity movement in mainland Europe and the United Kingdom. The Center also supports academics, scholars, grassroots activists, NGOs and charities who are facing defamation, bullying and/or repression. They have been working on several cases of restrictions on academic freedom in Austria, the United Kingdom and Germany.

Today, we discuss the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism and its adaptation, restrictions on human rights activists defending the rights of the Palestinian people and the work of scholars whose area of expertise is post-colonial studies, ethnic and religious conflicts, Middle Eastern studies, and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, as well as (self-)censorship. Besides, Giovanni and Alice answer our questions about the role of ELSC to promote freedom of expression and academic freedom.

We thank you for your contribution.

Can you say something about the European Legal Support Center? What is it about?

The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) is the first and only independent organisation defending and empowering the Palestine solidarity movement in Europe through legal means. We provide free legal advice and assistance to associations, human rights NGOs, groups and individuals advocating for Palestinian rights in Europe, including in the United Kingdom.

The ELSC intervenes to end arbitrary restrictions and criminalisation of peaceful advocacy and humanitarian work. It also develops legal tools and engages in strategic litigation to support civil society advocacy and campaigns.

Our work is rooted in movement lawyering. This means that we take direction from Palestinian civil society to help us use our legal and advocacy skills to challenge structural discrimination and oppression against Palestinians and their allies in a way that empowers them.

In that context, the Center was established in January 2019 as a joint initiative of European jurists, the Palestinian civil society network PNGO and the Dutch NGO The Rights Forum – which is kindly hosting the ELSC in Amsterdam.

What is IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism?

On 26 May 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism”, also known as the “IHRA definition”. The definition declares: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To complement the definition, the IHRA attached a set of eleven examples that serve as illustrations of “contemporary antisemitism”, seven of which relate to Israel. You can read more background on how the definition and its examples came to be adopted by the IHRA here. These examples welcome a conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies with antisemitism. In fact, according to a recent report by former UN Special Rapporteur, Ms. E. Tendayi Achiume, on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the examples “are being invoked and leveraged to suppress fundamental human rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and political participation, as well as human rights to equality and non-discrimination”.

In this respect, numerous initiativesinstitutions, civil society organisations in Europe and beyond, and academics, including Jewish scholars and Palestinian scholars, have levelled criticism at the instrumentalisation of the IHRA definition as a tool to discredit legitimate objections to the Israeli government’s policies and actions. Crucially, even the IHRA definition’s lead author himself, Kenneth Stern, has cautioned against its weaponisation and, most recently, as UN bodies are being pressured into adopting the IHRA definition, more than 100 scholars signed a letter denouncing its detrimental effects on academic freedom.

While the IHRA definition is a non-binding instrument, governments and academic institutions throughout Europe have been as their new policy to combat antisemitism despite the well-documented risks for fundamental rights it carries. Indeed, former Special Rapporteur Tendayi Achiume observed that “it is precisely the IHRA-WDA’s ‘soft law’ status, which effectively helps undermine certain co-existent rights, without offering any remedy or means to legally challenge such violations”.

How does it affect universities and academic freedom? Can you see it as an instrument to limit academic freedom?

Universities are being pressured into adopting the IHRA definition by their governments. As a result, more than 200 British universities have incorporated the definition into their policies, and limitations to academic freedom and discussion have already been reported. The IHRA definition has thus become a binding policy in many universities, which has already led to students and staff members being subjected to disciplinary proceedings under it.

The case of Shahd Abusalama (see further details below) illustrates how unfounded accusations of antisemitism often cost scholars and academics their jobs and reputation. Though such accusations are consistently disproven and dismissed, they instill the fear of being subjected to arbitrary disciplinary proceedings in the first place.

Similar cases have also emerged in Germany and Austria, where allegations of antisemitism supported by the IHRA definition have been used as a tool to silence academics, thus limiting their academic freedom and, more broadly, their freedom of expression. Notable cases include the cancellation of Dr. Walaa Alqaisiya’s lecture at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts, as well as Dr. Anna-Esther Younes’ surveillance and disinvitation from an event organised by the Berlin chapter of political party The Left (Die Linke).

The formal inclusion of the IHRA definition within university policies and its use as a tool to discredit legitimate speech thus results in an arbitrary stigmatisation of academics who dare to speak their mind about Palestine and can lead to a climate of fear and self-censorship that gravely harms academia and Palestinian rights advocacy at large.

Do you think one day this kind of statement, or definition can lead to universities to accept it otherwise they can be accused of anti-Semitism?

Yes, this is a concrete risk. As previously stated, universities are encouraged, including by their governments, to adopt the IHRA definition as an internal policy through a practice bordering improper interference with institutional autonomy. For instance, the UK government, in the person of the education secretary, has threatened funding cuts if universities refuse to adopt the definition.

Despite the governmental pressure, university bodies in the UK have rejected the definition. For instance, following University College London (UCL)’s adoption of the IHRA definition, its Academic Board called on the university to retract the definition and seek an alternative one. Such instances have led to various criticisms raised against academic institutions – although as of yet, no accusations of antisemitism. The latest example comes from the University of Aberdeen, which refused to adopt the IHRA definition and was soon accused of silencing Jewish voices and of taking a “scandalous position” on the matter. Such public accusations can damage a university’s reputation and detract the attention from the actual and pressing concerns raised by the IHRA definition in itself. However, UCL’s Academic Board and Aberdeen’s positions should be amplified and followed by others, as emblems of the defence of academic freedom.

Can you give some examples of the cases that the scholars were dismissed because of their works or critics about the conflict between Israeli and Palestine? One of the example as I know is from University of Bristol in 2021 where a professor of sociology David Miller lost his job because of his comment on Israel by accusation of antisemitism and another example is professor of Cornell University Architecture, Art, and Planning (Cornell AAP), Samia Henni, whose office was recently broken and looted, and who has been subjected to the online hate harassment in 2020/2021 after her publication (The Coloniality of an Executive Order) and lecture, “Palestine is There, Where it Has Always Been,” that she convened at Cornell University.

The cases of Dr. Anna-Esther Younes in Germany and Dr. Walaa Alqaisiya in Austria saw both scholars being brutally disinvited from events in which they were supposed to present their work. Both specialised in decolonial perspectives, and both were accused of antisemitism because of their academic research and publications on Palestine/Israel. Their subjection to smear campaigns and, in Dr. Younes’ case, to illegitimate surveillance, has severely damaged their reputation amongst the academic community – so much so that, despite the refutation of the allegations, it is still difficult for them to reclaim a space in academia. This goes to show how scholars on Palestine/Israel in Europe are sometimes compelled to self-censor in order to avoid groundless accusations, stigmatisation and even isolation from their peers.

In the UK, Dr. Shahd Abusalama was subjected to an internal investigation by Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) over a Twitter thread she posted. As part of this investigation, she was suspended a day before her teaching position was supposed to start. Thanks to a powerful worldwide public campaign supported by the Sheffield Hallam UCU, civil society organisations, academics, students, and the ELSC, the university lifted the suspension six days later, and dropped the investigation. A few months later, SHU launched a second investigation which cleared Shahd – yet again. This investigation was confidential, and in breach of a settlement agreement reached between Sheffield Hallam and Dr. Abusalama, a Senior University Official used this information to further smear Shahd in the press.

These are only a few examples that illustrate the risks Palestinian scholars, and academics working on Palestine/Israel more broadly, face on a daily basis. As Dr. Alqaisiya’s case shows, not only are universities resorting to the IHRA definition, but other pro-Israel actors are increasingly using the definition to back their allegations of antisemitism.

As the examples above and the case of David Miller show, the instances of scholars being silenced, dismissed, investigated and as a result alienated from the academic world are growing at a worrying pace throughout various European countries. The broad adoption of the IHRA definition encourages this trend by giving an appearance of soundness to the claim that criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism.

How do the scholars at risk reach you?

Scholars at risk often find us through the solidarity movement, friends, relatives or online, on our website or social media. Anyone who wishes to reach out to the ELSC to request legal support or to report an incident of repression, including a limitation of their academic freedom based on their voices being raised to speak about Palestine/Israel, is welcome to do so through our website. We do our best to promptly get back to them and provide the support they need.

What kind of cases do you encounter? For what reason usually the scholars are accused of anti-Semitism or dismissed?

Most of the time, the scholars we defend write and teach on Palestine/Israel or the Middle East, or they are sympathetic to the Palestinian people’s struggle to access their fundamental rights. Some are also active on the topic in their personal, rather than professional, capacity. They sign petitions, go to protests, and/or express their opinions on this topic through their personal social media.

Usually, scholars face complaints (often anonymous) for alleged antisemitism and/ or smear campaigns from pro-Israel media or advocacy groups based on social media posts, academic articles, or other initiatives related to their activism. It is important to mention that, so far, all the scholars we support have been cleared of the allegations (or their case is still pending), for the very simple reason that they are baseless. Indeed, the allegations predominantly refer to conduct or actions that equate legitimate criticism of the Israeli State or its policies, or of Zionism as a political ideology, and have nothing to do with antisemitism. It is also important to add that those scholars keep being active on Palestine, and we strongly believe that our legal intervention and the many cases we have won deter the usual complainants to keep going with their unfounded allegations.

It seems that these cases are not talked a lot. Why do you think about this silence?

These cases are often underreported because universities are hesitant to get involved with an issue that some voices deem “controversial”. Universities fear that complaints and accusations may expose them and put their reputation on the line, even after academics are vindicated. There is a “Palestine Exception” in academia, as Palestine Legal documented in its landmark report concerning the US context.

The scholars themselves are sometimes afraid to speak out about their experience, because even a wrongful accusation of antisemitism entails a heavy and lasting stigma to one’s name. There is undue shame and taboo around the topic and speaking out can risk one’s career. It is what we call the chilling effect, which affects not only the people who are directly targeted but also their whole community. The chilling effect manifests itself in self-censorship and shrinking civic space, which interferes with the right to freedom of expression, including academic freedom, and the right of the public to receive accurate information on Palestine/Israel. This poses a threat to the safeguarding of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

However, it is crucial to break this pattern and build a support network that speaks out and expresses support for targeted scholars. This in turn helps academics feel safe to speak their minds without fear of retaliation and to see their reputation restored. Pushing back is possible, as we have experienced, and it is necessary if we want to challenge the restrictive policies and tactics aimed at silencing the voices that are critical of Israel or other apartheid or colonial regimes.

Academic freedom, according to UNESCO’s definition of 1997, is “[…] the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies”. As a lawyer what do you think about academic freedom?

As stated by former Special Rapporteur and Professor of Law Tendayi Achiume, academic freedom must be interpreted as “the freedom of individuals, as members of academic communities (e.g., faculty, students, staff, scholars, administrators and community participants) or in their own pursuits, to conduct activities involving the discovery and transmission of information and ideas, and to do so with the full protection of human rights law.” Thus, academics must enjoy the right to academic freedom in its broadest ‘extramural’ meaning, that is not only in their institutional and on-campus activities, but also in their role as educators and commentators in their private sphere.

The European Court of Human Rights has also acknowledged the importance of academic freedom as a corollary of the broader right to freedom of expression, protected under Article 10 of the ECHR. Article 10 is particularly important, as it applies not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. The undeniable importance of freedom of expression, and by extension of academic freedom, justifies a strictly limited interference with this right, in exceptional and narrowly prescribed circumstances.

How can/should university community take action about these cases and protect academic freedom?

The university community’s support is vital in supporting scholars and protecting the academic freedom of the community as a whole. Materially, members of the university community can amplify cases and campaigns, such as that of Dr. Younes, to end censorship and surveillance of academics in Germany. Letters, statements and campaigns in support of academics who are facing such restrictions on their academic freedom can be signed and spread throughout professional and personal networks. The university community must speak out collectively, and we welcome you to support and follow the work done by the ELSC and other organisations and activist groups working on this topic. It is crucial to distribute information about the danger of adopting and applying the IHRA definition of antisemitism within universities.


Cover photo generated with Stable Diffusion, prompted with “Abuses of the accusation of antisemitism” and some style directions.

Categories
Release

Second edition of ‘Don’t Buy Into Occupation’ coalition exposes billions in European financial support to companies in illegal Israeli settlements

The Don’t Buy Into Occupation coalition releases its second report exposing European financial institutions’ involvement in the Israeli illegal settlement enterprise.

The new report finds that between January 2019 and August 2022, 725 European financial institutions  (EFIs) were actively involved in the illegal Israeli settlement enterprise with $115.5 billion in shares and bonds, and $171.4 billion in loans and underwritings between January 2019 and August 2022.

Since the release of the first DBIO report, the volume of lending to, share and bond holdings in these businesses has remained high. This exposes the continued lip service paid by EFIs to the need for heightened due diligence in the context of military occupation. 

The DBIO coalition consists of 24 European and Palestinian Organisations who have come together to investigate the financial relationships between European financial institutions and businesses involved across various sectors in the illegal Israeli settlement enterprise. The report findings are critical in defunding Israeli occupation by understanding how European financial institutions are linked to violations of human rights and international law, like the illegal appropriation of Palestinian land and expulsion of families.

Read the second edition of the report here: https://dontbuyintooccupation.org/reports/dont-buy-into-occupation-report/

To search the implication of financial institutions in the Israeli illegal settlement enterprise by company, investor or creditor, check this database: https://dontbuyintooccupation.org/dbio-data/

Categories
Release

65 Organisations Send a Letter to the New High Commissioner for Human Rights, Urging for Concrete Measures to Ensure Justice and Accountability for the Palestinian People

On 17 October 2022, 65 Palestinian, regional and international organisations sent a joint letter to the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Volker Türk, welcoming him in his new position and highlighting some of the recent alarming Israeli policies and practices imposed against Palestinians.

Specifically, the letter underscored Israel’s 15-year-old closure and blockade of the Gaza Strip; Israel’s escalation in its invasive military incursions into Palestinian cities in recent months; and its closure as acts of collective punishment of Shu’fat Refugee Camp and ‘Anata; as well as an aggravation in the Israeli Occupying Forces’ (IOF) use of its ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy. Furthermore, the letter underlined the increase of Israel’s campaign of mass arbitrary arrests and detentions, including in its arbitrary, coercive, and punitive administrative detention policy.

Noting how the Palestinian people have been denied their right to self-determination for decades, the joint letter emphasised that the human rights situation in Palestine should be at the top of the High Commissioner’s agenda, including by prioritising the annual updating the UN Database on Settlement Business Activities, as mandated. The letter noted with concern, the repeated and unexplained delays regarding the update of the Database, which are unprecedented in the way the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has handled prior mandates, and are due to reported political pressure and interference exerted on the OHCHR. To this end, the letter highlighted Israel’s systematic efforts in silencing human rights defenders, voicing their opposition to Israel’s unlawful policies and practices and pushing for international justice and accountability, including by arbitrarily outlawing six prominent Palestinian civil society organisations. That being said, the organisations expressed their trust that such pressure will not derail the OHCHR from its commitment to human rights, justice, and accountability, and urged the new High Commissioner and his Office to:

  1. Recognise and acknowledge the root causes of the prolonged denial of Palestinian rights, embedded in Israel’s settler-colonialism and apartheid;
  2. Prioritise the annual updating of the UN Database, as mandated under HRC Resolution 31/36 and ensure that appropriate resources are allocated so as to allow for continued development of the Database;
  3. Continue working with civil society organisations and human rights defenders in full transparency for the completion and continuous updating of the Database;
  4. Address Israel’s institutionalised and systematic targeting of the Palestinian people, including the 15-year-long closure on the Gaza Strip, and Israel’s mass and arbitrary ‘shoot-to-kill’ and administrative detention policies; and
  5. Investigate and report, by means of country visits or otherwise, attacks against human rights defenders working on issues related to Palestine and facing intimidation or arbitrary legislative or administrative restrictions, and ensure their protection.

Read the full letter here.

Picture: CC-by-2.0 Justin McIntosh

Categories
Release

Urgent Communication: Imminent Threat to the Rights of Freedom of Expression and of Association and the Right of Non-discrimination in Berlin

Last week, the Berlin police prohibited public gatherings organised by civil society organisations in Berlin Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost, Palästina Spricht and Samidoun, planned to take place over the following weekend to commemorate the 74 years of the Nakba (the forced transfer of hundreds of Palestinians from their homeland). In the face of this imminent threat to the rights of freedom of expression and of association and the right of non-discrimination, the ELSC sent an urgent letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on racism, on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.

Download the letter

To the kind attention of:

Ms. E. Tendayi Achiume, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Ms. Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression;

Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association..

Excellencies,

I have the honour to address you in my capacity as Programme Director of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), a human rights organisation that provides free legal advice and assistance to associations and individuals advocating for Palestinian rights in mainland Europe and the United Kingdom.

In this connection, I would like to bring to the attention of your Excellencies, information we have received concerning the prohibition of public gatherings organised by three organisations, Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost, Palästina Spricht and Samidoun, on 13, 14 and 15 May 2022 in Berlin, Germany.

According to the information received:

Public gatherings were planned to take place on 13, 14 and 15 May 2022 in the City of Berlin in commemoration of the 74th anniversary of the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland. Three applications for interim measures to suspend the prohibitions were rejected by the Berlin Administrative Court.

The Berlin Police justifies the prohibition by making the claim that an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic atmosphere is likely to occur. It states that the majority of participants in the demonstration will be from the Arab diaspora and from Muslim-influenced groups, and that “experience has shown that this clientele currently has a clearly aggressive attitude and is not averse to violent action”. According to the Police, “gatherings that critically discuss the fate of Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territories are thus likely to mobilise people who, in specific cases, may be tempted to take actions or make statements that are not compatible with German legislation”.

In Europe, where freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of peacefully assemblies are guaranteed, this is a worrisome development. I wish to express my concern that these measures represent a blatant, arbitrary and disproportionate limitation to these freedoms as guaranteed by Articles 5 and 8 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (“Grundgesetz”), by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and by Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In addition, the allegations and language used in the prohibition are expressed with unjustifiable condescendence toward the German Palestinian community and amount to Anti-Palestinian racism, a form of anti-Arab racism that aims to silence, exclude, erase, stereotype, defame or dehumanize Palestinians or their narratives, in violation of the right of non-discrimination established by article 14 ECHR and article 26 ICCPR.

Therefore, I urge you to take action to: a) request an explanation from the competent authorities of the City of Berlin; b) publicly denounce the violations of the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the right of non-discrimination; c) take the necessary steps to ensure that any of the person(s) responsible for the alleged violations are held accountable.

Please accept, Excellencies, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Giovanni Fassina
Programme Director, ELSC
14.05.2022

Picture: Palestine solidarity protest in Berlin, credit Hossam el-Hamalawy (Flickr)

Categories
Release

Letter in Support of Dr. Anna Younes

The ELSC published a letter signed by over 500 scholars, artists, activists, organisations and human rights defenders to support Dr. Anna Younes and other scholars, activists and journalists against censorship and unlawful surveillance in Germany.

Sign the support letter

Read more about the case of Dr. Younes and her lawsuits and watch the video

Support scholars, activists and journalists against censorship and unlawful surveillance

We the undersigned scholars, artists, activists and organizations, stand in solidarity with Dr. Anna-Esther Younes, a German-Palestinian critical race and post-colonial scholar, who has already faced several misinformation media campaigns in Germany due to her academic and policy related work on anti-Jewish racism and Palestinian rights. In November 2019, a secret file about her was leaked to her, which had already led to professional exclusions based on unlawful secret data collection and surveillance research by state-funded civil society organizations that purport to investigate anti-Semitism in German society. As signatories we support her struggle against all forms of racism, including anti-Muslim racism and anti-Jewish racism, everywhere. We condemn repression in Germany that targets Critical Race theorists, advocates of Palestinian human rights, and supporters of BDS. We therefore endorse Dr. Younes’s campaign for data protection and the release of secret files on her and potential other decolonial and anti-racist scholars and activists.

We are alarmed by recent efforts to exclude Dr. Anna-Esther Younes from academia and from the public debate in Germany. In November 2019, the Berlin Department for Research and Information on Antisemitism (RIAS) prepared a secret file that patches together distorted selections of Dr. Younes’s writings to defame her distorting her scholarly work as allegedly supporting Islamism, Sexism, and by extension anti-Semitism. This file appears to have been circulated to politicians and event organizers in order to exclude her from a public debate on racism and right-wing extremism in Germany. Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East (JVP), Germany, has unequivocally defended Dr. Younes’s scholarship and condemned allegations on the “basis of decontextualized information, hearsay, and guilt by association.” JVP has reminded us that: “We need more, not less, critical analyses that shed light on the phenomenon of Islamophobia and its connection to antisemitism, as do those of Younes.” The purpose and method of information collection and sharing by RIAS did not respect Dr. Younes’s fundamental right to privacy and resembles State surveillance through a state-funded civil society organization.

We, the undersigned, believe that surveillance and secretly circulating defamatory documentation has no place in a democratic society. Attempts to silence critical and particularly minority voices in Germany have a common denominator: anti-Palestinian racism cloaked in anti-BDS positions. The German Parliament made such discrimination state doctrine when it adopted an anti-BDS resolution in 2019.

Dr. Younes’s RIAS file also features a public letter addressed to the German parliament and government signed by her and other international scholars. That letter is supposedly proof of her anti-Semitism. In anticipation of the proliferation of such fraudulent charges, hundreds of German, international,  Jewish and Israeli scholars, among them world authorities on anti-Jewish racism and the history of the Holocaust, had earlier condemned the German Parliament’s anti-BDS declaration as an “unreasonable, disproportionate and unlawful limitation of the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly of human rights defenders.” They have pledged not to serve on juries or prize committees or in academic hiring consultations in Germany whenever there are “convincing indicators that their decisions may be subject to ideological or political interference or litmus tests.” Last year, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has rejected the criminalization of boycotts directed against Israel in support of Palestinian rights and affirmed BDS as a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.

Based on the above, and irrespective of our diverse positions on supporting BDS, we demand RIAS release all documentation it has assembled on Dr. Younes and potential other decolonial and anti-racist scholars and activists. We, the signatories, also urge German institutions to rein in anti-Palestinian racism. There must be no Palestine exception to academic freedom and freedom of expression. 

SIGN the support letter

DONATE to help with the legal fees

The first signatories:

  1. European Legal Support Center (ELSC), The Netherlands
  2. Room 4 Resistance, queer DJs and nightlife activists collective, Germany
  3. Ronnie Kasrils, Former South African Government Minister and Author, South Africa
  4. The Jewish Antifascist Bund, Berlin, Germany
  5. Prof. Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley, USA
  6. Bundestag 3 for Palestine (BT3P), Germany
  7. Palästina Spricht / Palestine Speaks, Germany
  8. Dirk Moses, Frank Porter Graham Distinguished Professor of Global Human Rights History, Department of History, University of North Carolina, USA
  9. Prof. Ella Shohat, Author, USA
  10. Dr. Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University; Co-Editor, Journal of Palestine Studies, USA
  11. Prof. Amos Goldberg, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
  12. Ken Loach, Film Director, UK
  13. Achille Mbembe, Research Professor in History and Politics University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South Africa
  14. Prof. Noam Chomsky, University of Arizona, USA
  15. Omar Barghouti, human rights defender, Palestine
  16. Houria Bouteldja, decolonial activist, France
  17. Professor Alana Lentin, Western Sydney University, Australia
  18. Dr. Yassir Morsi, Writer and Academic, Australia
  19. Françoise Vergès, Antiracist Decolonial Feminist, Writer, France
  20. Prof. Emeritus Dr. Fanny-Michaela Reisin, former president of the International League for Human Rights – FIDH Germany, Germany 
  21. Aviad Albert, PhD candidate, University of Cologne, Germany
  22. Prof. Emeritus John Dugard, Universities of Leiden and the Witwatersrand, The Netherlands and South Africa
  23. Dr. Fatima El-Tayeb, Professor of Ethnicity, Race & Migration, Yale University, USA
  24. Nacira Guénif, Sociologist and Anthropologist Professor, University of Paris 8, France
  25. Prof. Emeritus Avner Ben-Amos, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
  26. Dr. Sami Khatib, Interim Professor, Staatliche Hochschule für Gestaltung (HfG) Karlsruhe, Germany
  27. Dr. Hilla Dayan, Lecturer, Amsterdam University College, The Netherlands and co-founder Academic for Equality, Israel
  28. Prof. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Sociologist, University of Coimbra, Portugal
  29. Prof. Roy Wagner, GESS department, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
  30. Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Hebrew university (rtd) and David Yellin Academic College Laureate of the EU Parliament Sakharov award for human rights and the freedom of thought, Israel
  31. Dr. Ofer Shinar Levanon, Hebrew University and Ruppin Academic College, Israel
  32. Dr. Itamar Shachar, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Sociology, Ghent University, Belgium
  33. Prof. James Dickins, University of Leeds, UK
  34. Dr. Robert Boyce, Emeritus Reader, London School of Economics, UK
  35. E. Natalie Rothman, Associate Professor of History, University of Toronto, Canada
  36. Ronit Lentin, Associate Professor, Sociology (retired), Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  37. Prof. Hagit Borer, FBA, FLSA, Department of Linguistics, SLLF, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
  38. Prof. Haim Bresheeth, Professorial Research Associate, SOAS, University of London, UK
  39. Dr. Shir Hever, Manager of BIP e.V., Germany
  40. Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo, Professor of Political Science, Mansfield, USA
  41. Prof. em. Dr. Norman Paech, University of Hamburg, Germany
  42. Paul Mendes-Flohr, Professor Emeritus, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
  43. Thomas Perroud, Professor of Public Law, Pantheon-Assas University, France
  44. Mark LeVine, Professor of History, Chair, Program in Global Middle East Studies, UC Irvine, USA
  45. Paul Aarts, Dept. of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  46. 7amleh, Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Palestine
  47. British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), UK
  48. Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost (Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East), Germany
  49. UK-Palestine Mental Health Network, UK
  50. AURDIP (Association des Universitaires pour le respect du droit international en Palestine), France
  51. Another Jewish Voice, Belgium
  52. Independent Jewish Voices Canada
  53. Comité Pour Une Paix Juste Au Proche-Orient, Luxembourg 
  54. Norwich Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UK
  55. The Rights Forum, The Netherlands
  56. Jewish Network for Palestine, UK
  57. Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Ireland
  58. Academics for Palestine, Ireland
  59. Dutch Higher Education in Solidarity with Palestine, The Netherlands
  60. Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies, Australia
  61. California Scholars for Academic Freedom, USA 
  62. Jewish Voice for Peace, Milwaukee Chapter, USA
  63. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions – Germany, Germany
  64. Aydoun Holland, The Netherlands
  65. Finnish-Arab Friendship Society, Finland
  66. North Herts Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UK
  67. BACBI, Belgian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, Belgium
  68. International Fellowship of Reconciliation-France, France
  69. Free Palestine Maastricht, The Netherlands
  70. Institut für Palästinakunde (reg. assoc.) – Institute for the Study of Palestine (reg. assoc.), Germany
  71. BDS Berlin, Germany
  72. Bündnis gegen Rassismus Berlin, Germany
  73. Die LINKE Berlin LAG Internationals, Germany
  74. Dance with Pride, Germany and The Netherlands
  75. Antifascist Music Alliance, Germany and The Netherlands
  76. Decolonial International Network, The Netherlands
  77. Diensten en Onderzoek Centrum Palestina (docP), The Netherlands
  78. Europeans Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP), UK
  79. Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JFJFP), UK
  80. Een Ander Joods Geluid (EAJG), The Netherlands
  81. British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), UK
  82. Artists for Palestine, UK
  83. Palestine Legal, USA
  84. Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS), France
  85. Comité pour le respect des libertés et des droits de l’homme en Tunisie (CRLDHT), France
  86. Fédération des tunisiens citoyens des deux rives (FTCR), France
  87. Palestina Solidariteit, Belgium
  88. Palästinensischen Studenten Verein Berlin – Brandenburg PSV e.V., Germany
  89. Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine (CJACP), France
  90. CAGE, UK
  91. Coalition of Anti-Racist Educators (CARE), No More Exclusions, UK
  92. Women in Black (Vienna), Austria
  93. Plateforme des ONG françaises pour la Palestine, France
  94. UCL Students for Justice in Palestine, UK
  95. Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
  96. Border Violence Monitoring Network
  97. Islamic Human Rights Commission, UK
  98. Africa 4 Palestine, South Africa
  99. Na’eem Jeenah, Executive Director, Afro-Middle East Centre, South Africa
  100. Dr. Leena Dallasheh, Associate Professor of History, Humboldt State University, USA
  101. Dr. Maria Elena Indelicato, CEEC Individual FCT Researcher, University of Coimbra, Centre for Social Studies, Portugal
  102. Livnat Konopny Decleve, PhD candidate, Tel Aviv University, Israel
  103. Bob Brecher, Professor Emeritus of Moral Philosophy, University of Brighton, UK
  104. Richard Seaford, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Greek, University of Exeter, UK
  105. Prof. Greg Philo (emeritus), Glasgow University, UK
  106. Dr. Derek Summerfield, Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College, University of London, UK
  107. Herman De Ley, Emeritus Professor, Ghent University, Belgian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (BACBI), member of the Coordination Committee, Belgium
  108. Dr. Sai Englert, Lecturer, Leiden University, The Netherlands
  109. Prof. Yonathan (jon) Anson, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (retired), Israel
  110. Lucia Admiraal, Assistant Professor Middle Eastern Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
  111. Dr. Lana Sirri, Project manager BIWOC Rising, Germany
  112. Prof. Joseph Levine, Professor of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA
  113. Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University*, USA. (*For purposes of identification only. The position taken here should not be attributed to the University)
  114. Prof.dr.em Annelies Moors, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  115.  Professor Emerita, Lisa Rofel, University of California, Santa Cruz, National Board, Member, Jewish Voice for Peace, USA
  116. Prof. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence, Law and Political Science, Emeritur, Yale University, USA
  117. Dr. Lila Abu-Lughod, Professor at Columbia University, USA
  118. Ghislain Poissonnier, French magistrate, France
  119. Prof. Paola Bacchetta, University of California, Berkeley, Turtle Island, USA
  120. Prof. Rebecca Ruth Gould, Professor, Islamic World & Comparative Literature, University of Birmingham, UK
  121. Dr. Noa Roei, Assistant Professor, Department of Literary and Cultural Analysis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  122. Dr. Jeff Handmaker, Associate Professor in Legal Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  123. Ms Sarah Sheriff, Lecturer, Adult & Community Education, London, UK
  124. Dr. Jens Hanssen, Assoc. Prof., Arab Civilization, Mediterranean Studies and Middle Eastern History, University of Toronto, Canada
  125. Dr. Jess Bier, Assistant professor of urban sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  126. Dr. Lieke Smits, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Antwerp, Belgium
  127. Dr. Lisa Stampnitzky, Lecturer in Politics, University of Sheffield, UK
  128. Dr. David Kattenburg, University science instructor & journalist, Breda, The Netherlands
  129. Dr. Nicola Perugini, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Edinburgh, UK
  130. Irene van Oorschot, PhD, Postdoctoral researcher, The Netherlands
  131. Prof. Neve Gordon, International Law, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London, UK
  132. Dr. Brooke Maddux, France Palestine Mental Health Network, doctoral scholar in Philosophy, Université de Reims, France
  133. Dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  134. Dr. Tamar Berger, Bezalel academy of art and design, Jerusalem, Israel
  135. Prof. Esther Peeren, Professor of Cultural Analysis & Academic Director, Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  136. Alon Confino, Pen Tishkach Chair of Holocaust Studies, Professor of History and Jewish Studies, Director, Institute for Holocaust, Genocide, and Memory Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
  137. Dr. Tammy Razi, Sapir College, Israel
  138. Dr. Lori A. Allen, Reader in Anthropology, Department of Anthropology & Sociology, SOAS, University of London, UK
  139. Prof. Laleh Khalili, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London, UK
  140. Prof. Goldie Osuri, Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, UK
  141. Assoz. Prof. Dr. Birgit Englert, University of Vienna, Austria
  142. Shmuel Groag, Senior lecturer, Bezalel academy of Art and Design, Jerusalem
  143. Dr. Anat Matar, The Department of Philosophy, Tel Aviv University, Israel and co-founder, Academia for Equality, Israel
  144. Prof. Carole H Browner, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), USA
  145. Nahla Abdo, Professor (Sociology and Anthropology), Carleton University, Canada
  146. PhD fellow, Udi Raz, Berlin Graduate School Muslim Cultures and Societies, Germany
  147. Dr. Anne de Jong, Associate Professor Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  148. Ismail Poonawala, Professor of Arabic & Islamic Studies, UCLA, USA
  149. Dr. Eloe Kingma, Managing Director Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis, The Netherlands
  150. Professor Emeritus, Raymond Bush, African Studies and Development Politics, POLIS, University of Leeds, UK
  151. Dr. Michiel Bot, Assistant Professor, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
  152. Christian Henderson, PhD Assistant Professor, Leiden Institute for Area Studies (LIAS), Leiden University, The Netherlands
  153. Prof. Salman Sayyid, Professor of Social Theory & Decolonial Thought, University of Leeds, UK
  154. Prof. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Sociologist, University of Coimbra, Portugal
  155. Dr. Hatem Bazian, University of California, Berkeley, USA
  156. Dr.Melanie Richter-Montpetit, Senior Lecturer in International Security and Director of the Centre for Advanced International Theory, University of Sussex, UK
  157. Mudar Kassis, Birzeit University, Palestine
  158. Prof. Riccardo Bocco, The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Switzerland
  159. Dr. Kobi Kabalek, Penn State University, USA
  160. Prof. Dr. Henning Melber, University of Pretoria, South Africa
  161. Prof. Sari Hanafi, American University of Beirut, Lebanon
  162. Dr. Paniz Musawi Natanzi, Post-Doctoral Research Associate, SOAS, University of London, UK
  163. Prof. Dr. emeritus Moshe Zuckermann, Tel Aviv University, Israel
  164. Miss Akudo McGee, PhD Researcher, Maastricht University, The Netherlands
  165. Law Professor Xavier Dupré de Boulois, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France
  166. Dr. Rasha Soliman, Associate Professor of Arabic Language and Linguistics, University of Leeds, UK
  167. Dr. Inna Michaeli, Sociologist, Germany
  168. Prof. em. dr. Marc David Dep. Wiskunde, Universiteit Antwerpen, Belgium
  169. Prof. Eva Brems, Head of the Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Belgium
  170. Prof. Kanishka Goonewardena, University of Toronto, Canada
  171. Dr. Nozomi Takahashi, Ghent University, Belgium
  172. Prof. Dr. Reinhart Kößler, Germany
  173. Dr. Maya Mikdashi, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University, USA
  174. Dr. Jacques Englebert, Lawyer and Professor, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
  175. Associate Professor (retired) Robert Kirchner, University of Alberta Linguistics Dept (retired), Independent Jewish Voices Canada, steering committee, Temple Beth Ora Reform Jewish synagogue, board member, Canada
  176. Gordon Doctorow, Ed.D. (adjunct faculty member, Nova Southeastern University—identification purposes only), Canada
  177. Prof. em. Vincent Wertz, Ecole Polytechnique de Louvain, Belgium
  178. Dr. Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, Director and Senior Scholar, Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies San Francisco State University, USA
  179. Prof. Geert van Loo, VIB-UGent Center for Inflammation research Gent, Belgium
  180. Prof. Farid Esack, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
  181. Prof. Dr. Gilbert Achcar, SOAS, University of London, UK
  182. Jessica Elias, Tutor in Politics and Culture of the Middle East, Leiden University, The Netherlands
  183. Dr. Helmut Krieger, University of Vienna, Austria
  184. Marc Mormont, Professor, University of Liege, Belgium
  185. Dr. Leander Meuris, Staff scientist, VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, Belgium
  186. Dr. Beatriz de Abreu Fialho Gomes, retired Senior Lecturer, University of Vienna, Austria
  187. Stef Craps, Professor of English Literature, Ghent University, Belgium
  188. Prof. em. Dr. Wolf Linder University of Bern, Switzerland
  189. Dr. Hanan Toukan, Bard College Berlin, Germany
  190. Norma Rantisi Professor, Dept. of Geography, Planning & Environment, Concordia University, Canada
  191.  Marjolein De Pau, PhD Candidate at Ghent University, Belgium
  192. Dr. Dror Warschawski, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
  193. Layal Ftouni, Assistant Professor of Gender Studies and Critical Theory Utrecht University, The Netherlands
  194. PhD researcher Brigitte Herremans, Law Faculty, Ghent University, Belgium
  195. Dr. Anya Topolski, Associate Professor in Ethics and Political Philosophy, Radboud University, The Netherlands
  196. Eric Shragge, Associate Professor (retired) School of Community and Public Affairs, Concordia University, Montreal Quebec, Canada
  197. Dr. Terri Ginsberg, Assistant Professor of Cinema, Concordia University, Canada
  198. Dr. Ardi Imseis, Assistant Professor of Law Academic Director, International Law Programs Faculty of Law Queen’s University, UK
  199. Mark Ayyash, Associate Professor of Sociology, Mount Royal University, Canada
  200. John King, Associate Adjunct Professor, New York University, USA
  201. Denis Kosseim Philosophy Department CEGEP André-Laurendeau Montréal, Canada
  202. Dr. Todd May, Philosopher, USA
  203. Randa Farah, Associate Professor University of Western Ontario, Canada
  204. Dr. Alexis Merlaud, Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, Belgium
  205. Michael Rothberg, Professor of Comparative Literature, English, and Holocaust Studies, UCLA, USA
  206. Prof. Mark Lance, Department of philosophy, program on justice and peace Georgetown University, USA
  207. Dr. Les Levidow Senior Research Fellow Open University, UK
  208. Dr. Imad Mustafa, University Erfurt, Germany
  209. Dr. Chiara De Cesari, Associate Professor, European and Cultural Studies, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  210. Dr. Susan Blackwell Lecturer, Dept of Languages, Literature and Communication, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  211. Dr. Kathrin Thiele, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
  212. Prof. Nitzan Shoshan, Centro de Estudios Sociológicos, El Colegio de México, Mexico
  213. Prof. Mandy Turner Professor of Conflict and Peace Studies, University of Manchester, UK
  214. Prof. Dr. Yolande Jansen Socrates Professor for Humanism in Relation to Religion and Secularity at the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the Free University Amsterdam, and Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  215. Postdoctoral Research Associate, Peyman Jafari, Princeton University, USA
  216. Dr. Giovanni Picker, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Glasgow, UK
  217. Prof. Adam Hanieh Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies University of Exeter, UK
  218. Dr. Bashir Abu-Manneh Head of English University of Kent, UK
  219. PhD(c) Nadia Silhi Chahin Researcher, University of Edinburgh, UK
  220. Prof. Nicola Pratt, Professor of the International Politics of the Middle East University of Warwick, UK
  221. Daniel A. Segal, Jean M. Pitzer Professor of Anthropology & Professor of History, Pitzer College, Claremont, USA
  222. Dr. Martijn de Koning, Associate Professor Islam Studies Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  223. Mauricio Amar, Professor at the Eugenio Chahuan Center for Arab Studies, University of Chile, Chile
  224. PhD Lina Meruane, Writer and Associate Clinical Professor at New York University, Chile/USA
  225. Omar Jabary Salamanca, FNRS Research Fellow, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
  226. Mr. Barry Finnegan, Senior Lecturer & Programme Director at the Faculty of Journalism & Media Communications, Griffith College, Ireland
  227. Suad Joseph Distinguished Research Professor University of California Davis, USA
  228. Professor Karen Till, Maynooth University, Ireland
  229. Prof. dr. Sarah Bracke, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  230. Ivan Huber, PhD Prof Emeritus of Biology Fairleigh Dickinson University Madison, NJ, USA
  231. Dr. Nick Riemer, Senior Lecturer, English and Linguistics departments, University of Sydney, Australia
  232. Professor Victor Wallis, Berklee College of Music, USA
  233. William I. Robinson, Distinguished Professor, University of California-Santa Barbara, USA
  234. Sherene Seikaly, Associate Professor, Department of History, Director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of California, Santa BarbaraAuthor, Co-Editor, Journal of Palestine Studies, Co-Editor, Jadaliyya, USA
  235. Dr. Robert Austin Henry, Honorary Associate, Dept. of History University of Sydney, Australia
  236. Viviana Ramírez, BA (Hons), Dip. Ed. Senior Teacher of Spanish & Home Economics (retired) NSW & Queensland Depts. of Education (1980-2016), Australia
  237. David Mond, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, University of Warwick, UK
  238. (Dr) Michael Leonard Furtado, BA(Hons), CertEd(Lond), GradDipRE(ECU), DipSoc(Oxon), MA(WA), PhD(QLD), CertFour (Disability Studies)
  239. Professor Dr. Aziz Al-Azmeh, Central European University Vienna, Austria
  240. David Klein, Professor of Mathematics California State University Northridge, USA
  241. Dr. Sharae Deckard, Associate Professor in World Literature University College Dublin, Ireland
  242. Ximena de la Barra Mac Donald, Independent scholar UN retiree, Spain
  243. Dr. Larry Haiven, Professor Emeritus, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  244. Howard Winant, Distinguished Professor Emeritus Department of Sociology University of California Santa Barbara, USA
  245. Frances M. Clarke, Associate Professor Frances M Clarke Department of History, University of Sydney, Australia
  246. David Palumbo-Liu, Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor, Stanford University, USA
  247. Prof. Gerry Kearns, Professor of Geography Maynooth University, Ireland
  248. David Barkin, Profesor Distinguido, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana – Unidad Xochimilco, Mexico
  249. Sophia Hoffinger, PhD Researcher University of Edinburgh, UK
  250. Dr. Sheryl Nestel, Lecturer in Sociology (retired), University of Toronto, Canada
  251. Assistant Professor Jillian Rogin, University of Windsor, Windsor ON, Canada
  252. Dr. Erella Grassiani University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  253. Margaret Ferguson, Distinguished Professor of English Emerita University of California, Davis, USA
  254. Deborah Cowen, Professor, University of Toronto, Canada
  255. Dr. Lamia Moghnieh, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  256. Dr. Pepijn Brandon, Assistant Professor Global Economic and Social History Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands
  257. Julio Yao, Professor of International Law, International Analyst, Panama
  258. Shahla Razavi, Associate Professor, Mathematics (Retired) Mt. San Jacinto Community College California, USA
  259. Prof. Rami Salameh, Birzeit University, Palestine
  260. Lisa Baraitser, Professor of Psychosocial Theory, Department of Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
  261. Dr. Sarah El Bulbeisi, Researcher, Lebanon
  262. Leah Galant, Fulbright Scholar, USA
  263. Professor Stephen Frosh, Professor of Psychology, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
  264. Professor Ruba Salih, SOAS, University of London, UK
  265. Prof.  Yosefa Loshitzky, SOAS, University of London, UK
  266. Professor emeritus Moshé Machover, Department of Philosophy, King’s College, London UK
  267. Prof. Daniel Boyarin Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture, UC Berkeley (emeritus) and Grus Visiting Professor of Jewish Law, Harvard Law School (2021-2022), USA
  268. Mike Cushman, Research Fellow LSE (rtd), UK
  269. Dr. Lila Sharif, Assistant Professor of Asian American Studies. The University of Illinois, USA
  270. Prof. Jonathan Rosenhead, Emeritus Professor of Operational Research, London School of Economics, UK
  271. Esther Romeyn, Senior Lecturer, Center for European Studies, University of Florida, USA
  272. Prof. Candice Breitz, HBK Braunschweig, Germany
  273. Dr. Alyosxa Tudor, Senior Lecturer in Gender Studies, SOAS, University of London, UK
  274. Prof. Yael Politi, B CUBE – Center for Molecular Bioengineering, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
  275. Michael Harris, Professor of Mathematics, Columbia University, USA
  276. Prof. Dina Matar, SOAS, University of London, UK
  277. Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Kempf, University of Konstanz Department of Psychology, Germany
  278. Professor Ilan Pappe, Historian, University of Exeter, UK
  279. Professor Jodi Melamed, Marquette University, USA
  280. Dr. Alborz Ghandehari, Assistant Professor of Ethnic Studies University of Utah, USA
  281. Karma R. Chávez, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, The University of Texas, USA
  282. Eithne Luibhéid, Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies University of Arizona, USA
  283. Professor (of American Studies and Anthropology) J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D. Wesleyan University, USA
  284. Dr. Jacqueline Ismael, Professor Emerita, University of Calgary, Canada
  285. Max Weiss, Associate Professor of History and Near Eastern Studies Princeton University, USA
  286. Prof. Caroline Rooney, University of Kent, UK
  287. Anne Meneley, Professor of Anthropology Trent University, Canada
  288. Bárbara Azaola Piazza, Researcher, GRESAM, Spain
  289. Professor James A. Reilly, Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto, Canada
  290. Dr. Mazen Masri, Senior Lecturer in Law, City University of London, UK
  291. Michael Taussig, Class of 1933 professor Emeritus of the Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, USA
  292. Dr. Angelo Stefanini, Retired Faculty, University of Bologna, Italy
  293. Walid Kazziha, Professor of Political Science, American University in Cairo, Egypt
  294. Anthony Alessandrini, Professor of English & Middle Eastern Studies City University of New York, USA
  295. Prof. Janet C.E. Watson, FBA Co-director of Centre for Endangered Languages, Cultures and Ecosystems University of Leeds, UK
  296. Prof. Laura Guazzone, University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy
  297. Susan Slyomovics, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Near Eastern Languages & Cultures University of California Los Angeles, USA
  298. Nada Moumtaz, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, Canada
  299. Dr. Farid Hafez, Researcher, Georgetown University, The Bridge Initiative, USA
  300. Dr. Nikolas Kosmatopoulos, Assistant Professor American University of Beirut, Lebanon
  301. Leila Pourtavaf, Assistant Professor of Global Public History Department of History York University, Canada
  302. Charles E. Butterworth, Emeritus Professor Department of Government & Politics University of Maryland College Park, MD USA
  303. Catherine Cobham, Lecturer, Department of Arabic and Persian, School of Modern Languages, University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK
  304. Stephen Marmura PhD (he/him) Associate Professor Department of Sociology, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada
  305. Dr. Paul Kelemen retired academic (formerly of Manchester University UK)
  306. Leonardo Capezzone Associate Professor Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
  307. Francesco Zappa Associate Professor, Islamic Studies Sapienza University, Italy
  308. Dr. James Deutsch Faculty, Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada
  309. Dr. Raz Segal, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University, USA
  310. Dr. Elaine C. Hagopian, Professor Emerita of Sociology Simmons University (Boston), USA
  311. Dr. Ruth Marshall Associate Professor Departments of Political Science, Study of Religion University of Toronto, Canada
  312. Michael Lambek, FRSC. Professor, University of Toronto Canada
  313. Atalia Omer, Professor of Religion, Conflict, and Peace Studies Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies Keough School of Global Affairs, The University of Notre Dame, USA
  314. Cynthia Franklin, Professor of English, University of Hawai’i, USA
  315. Dr. Claudia Prestel, Professor emerita, Germany
  316. Yasser Munif Associate Professor/ Emerson College, USA
  317. Elsa Wiehe, ED. D. Boston University African Studies Center K-16 Education Program Manager Boston, Ma, USA
  318. Dr. Bram Wispelwey, Instructor, Harvard Medical School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA
  319. Nigel C. Gibson Professor, Marlboro Institute of Liberal Arts and Interdisciplinary Studies. Emerson College Boston, USA
  320. Jason A. Springs, Professor of Religion, Ethics, and Peace Studies University of Notre Dame, USA
  321. Dr. Ada Barbaro, Senior lecturer in Arabic Language and Literature Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
  322. Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Director, Palestine Institute for Biodiversity and Sustainability Bethlehem University, Palestine
  323. Mohammad Fadel, Professor of Law, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Canada
  324. Prof. Jawed Siddiqi, Emeritus Professor Sheffield Hallam University, UK
  325. Lora Wildenthal, John Antony Weir Professor of History, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA
  326. Najat Rahman, Professor of Comparative Literature, University of Montreal, Canada
  327. Dr. Sara Roy, Senior Research Scholar Center for Middle Eastern Studies Harvard University, USA
  328. Lawrence Davidson, Professor Emeritus of History, West Chester University, USA
  329. Tareq Y. Ismael, Professor of Political Science and Co-editor of Journal of Contemporary Iraq & the Arab World, University of Calgary, Canada
  330. Prof. Michelle Hartman, McGill University, Québec, Canada
  331. Jane Mchan, retired professor, USA
  332. Vincent Romani, Professor, Department of Political science, UQAM (Université du Québec à Montréal), Canada
  333. Prof. Ferhat Kentel, “We Shall Live Together” – Foundation of Education and Social Researches (BAYETAV), General Coordinator, Turkey
  334. Ivar Ekeland, Professor emeritus, former President, the University of Paris-Dauphine Member of the Academia Europea, foreign member of the Academies of Norway and Austria
  335. Ira Dworkin, Associate Professor Texas A&M University, USA
  336. Dr. Ellen Fleischmann, Professor Emerita, University of Dayton, USA
  337. Prof. Nakayike Musisi, History Department, University of Toronto, Canada
  338. Prof. Dr. Karin Kulow Near and Middle East Scientist, Germany
  339. Dr. Hana Masri Fellow Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), USA
  340. Prof. em. Dr. Georg Meggle Analytical Philosopher, Philosophy Department, University Leipzig, Germany
  341. Dr. Hab. Nora Lafi, Historian, Germany
  342. Dr. Sigrid Vertommen, postdoctoral research fellow, Department of Conflict and Development Studies, Ghent University, Belgium
  343. Kate Korycki, Phd Assistant Professor, Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies, Western University, London Ontario, Canada
  344. Amber Jamilla Musser, Professor of English, CUNY/ The Graduate Center, USA
  345. Dr. Katherine Blouin, Associate Professor of History and Classics, University of Toronto, Canada
  346. Prof. John Chalcraft, London School of Economics, UK
  347. Prof. Tim Jacoby, Global Development Institute, Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute Treasurer, British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, UK
  348. James Godfrey, PhD Researcher, UK
  349. Paul Allies, Professeur Emérite, Université Montpellier, France
  350. Dr. Rinella Cere, College of Social Sciences and Art, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
  351. Michael Allan, Associate Professor, University of Oregon, USA
  352. Prof., Dr. iur., Dr. h.c., Stefan Trechsel, Former President, European Commission of Human Rights, former Judge of the ICTY, Switzerland
  353. Dr. Peter E Jones, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
  354. Prof. Gadi Algazi Tel Aviv University, Department of History & Minerva Institute for German History, Director, Israel
  355. Dr. Jana Cattien, Assistant Professor in Political and Social Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  356. Dr. Markha Valenta Assistant Professor, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
  357. Dr. Grietje Baars, Reader in Law and Social Change, The City Law School, City, University of London, UK
  358. Dr. Leandros Fischer, Assistant Professor for International Studies, Aalborg University, Denmark/Germany
  359. Dr. Sharri Plonski, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Queen Mary University of London, UK
  360. Marco Balboni, Professor, University of Bologna, Italy
  361. Dr. Philippe Enclos, Associate professor in law, retired, University of Lille, France
  362. Fabio Marcelli, Research Director of the Institute of International Legal Studies of the National Research Council, Italy
  363. Dr. Max Haiven, Canada Research Chair in the Radical Imagination, Lakehead University, Canada
  364. Dr. Kylie Thomas Researcher, Netherlands Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  365. Hazem Jamjoum, Doctoral Candidate, New York University, UK
  366. Prof. Emerita Marie Kennedy, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
  367. Dr. Zvi Bekerman, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
  368. Dr. Grietje Baars, Reader in Law and Social Change, The City Law School, City, University of London, UK
  369. Rush Rehm, Professor, Theater and Performance Studies, and Classics, Stanford University, Artistic Director, Stanford Repertory Theater (SRT), USA
  370. Nadje Al-Ali, Professor of Anthropology & Middle East Studies, Brown University, USA
  371. Prof. Emerita Joan W. Scott, Institute for Advanced Study, USA
  372. Prof. Louise Bethlehem, Associate Professor, Department of English & Chair of Program in Cultural Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
  373. Dr. Chris Tilly, Professor of Urban Planning, University of California Los Angeles (organization for identification purposes only), USA
  374. Howard Rechavia-Taylor, PhD Candidate at Columbia University in the City of New York, Berlin, Germany
  375. Dr. (EdD), Gordon Doctorow, Retired (Adjunct Nova Southeastern University), Canada
  376. Dr. Mikki Stelder, Marie Sklowdowska Curie Postdoctoral Fellow, Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis, The Netherlands
  377. Prof. Pablo Idahosa, York University, Canada
  378. Prof. Dr. Matthias Haase, Department of Philosophy, University of Chicago, USA
  379. Dr. Luis Manuel Garcia-Mispireta Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Music, University of Birmingham, UK
  380. Dr. Kirsten L. Scheid, Associate Professor, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
  381. Prof. Dr. Helga Baumgarten (retired professor at Birzeit University, Palestine), Germany
  382. Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Researcher and PhD candidate, Leiden University, The Netherlands/Mexico
  383.  George Bisharat, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, USA
  384. Dominique Vidal, journalist and historian, France
  385. Alain Gresh, journalist, France
  386. Marlène Tuininga, Activist journalist, France
  387. Pary El-Qalqili, Filmmaker, Germany
  388. Jan Ralske, Filmmaker, Germany
  389. Canan Turan, Film Scholar, Filmmaker and Activist
  390. Lili Sommerfeld, Musician and Activist, Germany
  391. Monika Vykoukal, Accountant, Vienna, Austria
  392. Teresa Bailey, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist, UK
  393. Noor Blaas, Research Master’s student in Cultural Anthropology University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
  394. Dr. Martin Kemp, Psychoanalyst, UK
  395. Ms Eliana Pinto, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist, UK-Palestine Mental Health Network, UK
  396. Annette Feld, Practising Analyst, New Lacanian School, World Association of Psychoanalysis, Israel
  397. Helen Marks, member of Jewish Voice for Labour and Liverpool Friends of Palestine, retired Psychotherapist, UK 
  398. Ruth Orli Moshkovitz, activist, mother and project manager, Vienna, Austria
  399. Fenya Fischler, Another Jewish Voice, Belgium
  400. Dipl.-Psych., Psychoanalyst, Michal Kaiser-Livne, Germany
  401. Iris Hefets, psychoanalyst, Germany
  402. Wieland Hoban, composer and translator, chairman of Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East, Germany
  403. Raphael Van Laere, Former President of the Académie Royale d’Archéologie de Belgique, Belgium
  404. Suzanne Berliner Weiss, Author and social justice activist, Canada
  405. Kamal Aranki, Finnish Arab Friendship Society, Finland
  406. Sid Shniad, Founding member, Independent Jewish Voices, Canada
  407. Jay Murphy, writer & author, New Orleans, USA
  408. Elizabeth Block, Member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Canada
  409. Dr.  Egbert Harmsen, Board member of docP-BDS Netherlands, The Netherlands
  410. Ms Erica Lang, Secretary, North Herts Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UK
  411. Laura Prevedello, Assopace Palestina Italia, Italy
  412. Bruce H. Lofquist M.A. Human Rights Advocate, Canada
  413. Peter Leuenberger, Historian, Switzerland
  414. Rachida Lamrabet, Writer and legal practitioner, Belgium
  415. Charlotte Kates, international coordinator, Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, Canada
  416. Sam Bahour, Writer, businessperson, activist, Palestine
  417. Michael Letwin, Former President, Assn. of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW 2325 and Member of Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, Labor for Palestine, USA
  418. Kathy Bergen, Board member of Canadian Friends of Sabeel and Coordinator of MCEC PIN (Mennonite Church of Eastern Canada Palestine Israel Network), Canada
  419.  Michel Legrand, President of Comité Pour Une Paix Juste Au Proche-Orient, Luxembourg 
  420. Ahmed Abbes, mathematician, Director of research in Paris, France
  421. Drs. Jakob de Jonge, Visual Artist, The Netherlands
  422. Dr. Enrico De Angelis, independent researcher, Italy
  423. Deb Reich Author, No More Enemies Writer/translator Israel
  424. Ms Katherine Priestley, Treasurer, Lewisham Friends of Palestine, UK
  425. Dr. Leonov Hadas, Board member of the Juedische Stimme, Germany 
  426. Michèle Sibony, French Jewish Union for Peace, France
  427. Maha Abdallah, Legal Researcher and Human Rights Advocate, Palestine
  428. Luz Diaz, DJ / Curator/ Community organiser, Room 4 Resistance, Germany
  429. Nicholas Morris Member, Global Network on the Question of Palestine, UK
  430. Doris Ghannam, Activist, Germany
  431. Seth Aubrey Pyenson, Activist, Germany
  432. Solveig Qu Suess, Filmmaker, Researcher and PhD Candidate, Basel University, Switzerland
  433. Ahmed Abed, Lawyer of the BT3P (bt3p.org), Germany
  434. Omar Ashour, Medical intern, University of Maastricht; founding chair, Free Palestine Maastricht, The Netherlands
  435. Franklin Ledezma Candanedo, Journalist, writer and member of the COPASOLPA (Panamanian Committee of Solidarity with the Palestinian People), Panama
  436. Danna Marshall, Student Activist, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
  437. Jumana Manna, Artist, Germany
  438. Katharine Halls, Translator, UK
  439. Heiko Schmidt, Bookseller, Germany
  440. David Morgan, Consultant Psychotherapist, Psychoanalyst, UK
  441. Mohammad Braiwish, Managing Director, TrafQuest Engineering Consulting, United Arab Emirates 
  442. Alisa Gayle-Deutsch, Musician Toronto, Ontario, Canada 
  443. Judith Deutsch, psychoanalyst, Canada
  444. Deena R. Hurwitz, Independent human rights lawyer, USA
  445. Maj Britt Jensen, Visual Artist and PhD student at the Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice at the University of British Columbia Germany/Canada
  446. Dr. Clemens Messerschmid, independent hydrogeologist, Palestine
  447. Gabi Bieberstein, Spokesperson for the Regional Working Group on Peace and International Politics in North Rhine-Westphalia of DIE LINKE, Member of the National Council of Attac, Germany
  448. Dr. Detlef Griesche, Vice-President of the German-Palestinian Society, Germany
  449. Phil Butland, Commissioning Editor, theleftberlin.com, Germany
  450. Ursula Mathern, Disarmament and Peace Activist, Germany
  451. Naoual Belakhdar, Political scientist, Germany
  452. Peter Leuenberger, Historian, Switzerland
  453. Jessica Lauren Elizabeth Taylor, Black in Berlin, Curator, Norway
  454. Gabriela (Nin) Solis Gutiérrez, Photographer, Mexico
  455. Dror Feiler, Chair, European Jews for a Just Peace, Sweden
  456. Arthur Goodman Diplomatic and Parliamentary Officer, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, UK
  457. Jowan Safadi, Musician, writer and activist, Palestine (AKA Israel)
  458. Michael Warschawski, Activist and Journalist, Chairman of the Alternative Information Center, Jerusalem
  459. Mr Craig Murray, Journalist, former British Ambassador and Rector of the University of Dundee Scotland, UK
  460. Yuval Gal Cohen, Part of JID.Le – Jüdisch Israelischer Dissens Leipzig, Germany
  461. Berna Toprak, PhD Candidate Political Sociology University of Amsterdam, Co-Founder of Muslim women’s collective S.P.E.A.K., The Netherlands
  462. Maria Fernanda Caceres, Lawyer, Chile
  463. Yara Kayyali, Palestine
  464. Jaap Hamburger, Chair for Een Ander Joods Geluid, The Netherlands
  465. Frances Webber, Vice-chair of the Institute of Race Relations, London, UK
  466. Michael Sappir, Writer, Germany
  467. Marwa Fatafta, Al-Shabaka, Germany
  468. Esra Ozyurek, UK
  469. Kiefah Muhaisen, Palestinian in Germany
  470. Yehudit Yinhar, Artist, Germany
  471. R. Goossens, Project manager, The Netherlands
  472. Dr. Jennifer Petzen, Social Scientist, Germany
  473. Dr. Kerem Schamberger, political activist, Germany
  474. Dr. Dror Dayan, Senior Lecturer in Media Production, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
  475. Roger Waters, Musician/Activist
  476. Dr. Eik Doedtmann, Postdoctoral researcher, Filmuniversity Babelsberg, Germany
  477. John Smith, Artist, Emeritus Professor of Fine Art, University of East London, UK
  478. Lynne Segal, Professor Emerita, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
  479. Laura Mulvey, Professor of Film Studies, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
  480. Marina Warner, Professor of English and Creative Writing, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
  481. Miriam Margolyes, actor, UK
  482. Kika Markham, actor, UK
  483. Roy Battersby, television director, UK
  484. Penny Woolcock, screenwriter, director, UK
  485. David Farr, writer, director, UK
  486. Alexei Sayle, comedian, writer, broadcaster, UK
  487. Gillian Slovo, author, UK
  488. Hanan Al-Shaykh, writer, UK
  489. Victoria Brittain, writer, UK
  490. Carmen Callil, publisher, writer, UK
  491. Selma Dabbagh, writer, UK
  492. April De Angelis, playwright, UK
  493. Dr. Rachel Holmes, writer, UK
  494. Brigid Keenan, author, United Kingdom
  495. Dr. Dana Mills, writer, Israel 
  496. Dr. Maggie Gee, novelist, UK
  497. Omar Al-Qattan, Chair, AM Qattan Foundation, UK
  498. Charlotte Prodger, artist, Scotland
  499. Saeed Taji Farouky, filmmaker and educator, UK
  500. Dr. Miranda Pennell, artist, filmmaker, UK
  501. Dr. Daniel O’Gorman, Vice Chancellor Research Fellow in English Literature, Oxford Brookes University, UK
  502. Angela Davis, scholar, activist, US
  503. Dr. Kristina Kolbe, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  504. Dr. Ladan Rahbari, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  505. China Miéville, writer, UK
  506. Sabrina Mahfouz, writer, UK
  507. Gemma Jackson, Production Designer, UK

SIGN the support letter

Categories
Release

ELSC Achievements in 2021

We are pleased to share our achievements last year in support of the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and human rights.

In 2021, repression against Palestinian rights advocates has increased in Europe, particularly after Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and on Palestinian families opposing forced displacement in Jerusalem and the important mobilisation from civil society that followed, all over the world. Yet, the ELSC provided legal support or assistance in 80 cases of repressive attacks on advocates for Palestinian rights in the UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Belgium and France. This is twice the number of cases that we were able to support last year! We have managed to assist over 140 Palestinian rights advocates including Palestinian and European CSOs, activist groups, students, academics, artist and cultural institutions. In the vast majority of the cases we supported, our action was successful (the other cases are still pending). Among them, we share with you one success story!

An example of a successful case empowering young activists’ voices

“Progetto Palestina” is a student activists group at the University of Torino, which advocate for justice for Palestinians and calls for boycotts of Israeli apartheid, in line with international human rights standards. The group was targeted by a lawyer of pro-Israel organisation, which accused the members of the group of inciting to hatred against Jewish people. On this basis, the lawyer requested the University to disclose the personal data of the students with the clear aim to file a criminal complaint against them.

The ELSC immediately and successfully intervened, alerting the university that allowing access to the personal data of the students would violate their right to privacy. The University fully accepted our request denying access to the students’ data. Today, Progetto Palestina keeps advocating for Palestinian rights on campus. The episode fuelled them with a “strong determination”. They told the ELSC:

“ It gave us new energy and we started working to transform this attack into an opportunity. The ELSC backed us, and allowed us to focus on our activities while they took care of the legal aspects of the issue. We started a communication campaign on and off campus, which culminated in a big demonstration on Nakba Day, when more than 5.000 people marched in the streets of Turin, demanding the end of the apartheid regime and a free Palestine.”

Demonstration in the streets of Turin on Nakba day, May 2021

Developing public outreach

With our team growing, we also developed more public outreach and advocacy that are essential to support some cases, in addition to the legal work.

We published our first monitoring report on “chilling” Palestinian rights advocacy in the Netherlands together with 2 resource papers. This included a guide on the 10 situations in which the ELSC could defend your right to advocate for Palestinian rights.

We released 10 statements and joint letters, such as a letter to the EU Commission against the instrumentalisation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, co-signed with 10 organisations. We also filed our first submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Finally, we intervened in 2 workshops and 3 webinars, including one that we organised with Al Haq, PAX, SOMO, The Rights Forum on challenging the repression of Palestinian rights advocacy, and a webinar organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on resisting the IHRA definition.

Expanding the ELSC in Europe

With the support extended by our donors, we have managed to develop our expertise and our legal network, and expand to better defend and empower those who are advocating for fundamental rights and justice for Palestinian people. 

In the upcoming year, we have ambitious plans to increase the ELSC’s capacity for effective legal support even further, especially in the UK and Germany, where the attempts to criminalise and suppress academic freedom and campaigning for Palestinian rights are particularly severe.

Help us grow and support justice by donating.

Categories
Release

French Criminal Court Confirmed the Legitimate Character of BDS Call Dismissing the Allegations of Incitement to Discrimination Against Activist

On Thursday 27 January 2022, the Court of Appeal of Lyon (Cour d’Appel de Lyon) is set to hear the case of TEVA vs. Olivia Zémor. The defendant Olivia Zémor is the President of CAPJPO-EuroPalestine which is a group of BDS activists. She was acquitted on the 18 May 2021 by the criminal court (Tribunal Correctionnel de Lyon) dismissing the allegation of incitement to discrimination. The judgement, outlined below, is a turning point in protecting the right to boycott in French courts.

The defendant was accused of incitement to discrimination and public defamation by Teva Santé, the French subsidiary of TEVA Pharmaceutical Industry (hereinafter, ‘TEVA’).

TEVA is a global pharmaceutical company based in Israel that produces and distributes generic medicines across the world.  According to Israeli NGO ‘Who Profits’, the pharmaceutical company is complicit in supporting the unlawful occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory by exploiting Palestinian resources.

Several Palestine solidarity groups have been campaigning for a boycott of TEVA for a number of years because of their contribution to the unlawful occupation. A network of several French grassroots organisation advocating for Palestinian rights called ‘Collectif 69’ has been one of them.

On 19 November 2016 members of Collectif 69 gathered in front of the Grand Pharmacie Lyonnaise in Lyon as part of a BDS protest. The protesters encouraged shoppers and members of the public to support the boycott of TEVA products by distributing leaflets and attaching stickers to health care cards with the aim of informing the public about TEVA’s contribution to the unlawful Israeli occupation.

The following day CAPJPO-EuroPalestinepublished an article on its website about the protest quoting activists who participated in the action: “We have distributed hundreds of leaflets to passers-by and we have stuck a good number of stickers on their health care cards. Despite the fact that TEVA carefully hides in its various advertisements that part of its profits goes to the Israeli army, a significant number of passers-by were already aware about this situation and they declared themselves unwilling to give any money to the manufacturer of drugs from a country that prevents Palestinians from getting health treatments”.

The plaintiffs Teva Santé claimed the statement was defamatory, detrimental to the honour of the company and constituted incitement to discriminate against the company on the basis on nationality. Several pro-Israel advocacy groups joined the hearings as interested third parties.

With particular regard to the allegation of incitement to discrimination on the grounds of nationality, the Court of Lyon referred to the landmark ruling Baldassi and Others v. France delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in June 2020. The ECtHR described boycotts as a peculiar means of exercising freedom of expression as it combines expressing a protesting opinion with incitement to differential treatment. The latter can be discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there no proportionality between the means employed (i.e. boycott) and the aim sought to be realised (i.e. rejecting the unlawful occupation by Israel of the occupied Palestinian territory).

In the present case, the Court acknowledged legitimacy of the BDS call and the reasonable means it employed and emphasised that: a) the protest “was not subject to any prosecution of its participants for making racist or antisemitic statements or for calling to hatred or violence” and b) the statements made by the Publication Director on EuroPalestine’s website reflected “a commitment, a firm belief in a public debate of general interest”.

The Court of Lyon decided to acquit EuroPalestine’s Publication Director of both charges, stating that her opinions published on the website were protected by the right to freedom of expression, did not incite discrimination nor did they amount to defamation of Teva Santé.

By referring to the Baldassi case in its reasoning, the Court acknowledged the legitimacy of the call for boycott of Israeli products and its protection as a form of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. This decision represents a significantly positive development for Palestinian rights advocates in France, a country in which there is an institutional resistance to recognising the full legitimacy of BDS campaign.

For a comprehensive overview of the decision of the criminal Court on 18 May 2021, please read our Executive Summary.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is expected on the 5th of May 2022.

Categories
Release

60 International CSOs to Dutch Government: “Resume Dutch funding for UAWC, reject Israel’s designation of Palestinians NGOs”

Along with 59 other civil society organisations from all around the world, we asked the Dutch government to resume its funding for UAWC and to reject Israel’s designation of Palestinian NGOs. Indeed, the Dutch decision to cut funding was baseless, and the Dutch government also failed to reject the Israeli designation whereas it was recognised as unsubstantiated. This is deeply harming Palestinian civil society and legitimises the ongoing Israeli politically-motivated smear campaigns against Palestinian CSOs.

Read the joint letter here.

Also read:

  • the joint letter we sent to the Dutch government with 27 Dutch NGOs.
  • our joint statement with The Rights Forum on the decision to cut funding for UAWC.
Categories
Release

Public Campaign for Austrian Activist Facing Lawsuit

A member of BDS Austria is being sued by the Municipality of Vienna for sharing a Facebook post stating: ”Visit Apartheid – Free Palestine”. The Municipality has filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) to deliberately repress and intimidate BDS-Austria and Palestinian rights advocates. Such a tactic threatens democratic values and fundamental rights. The hearing at the Commercial Court of Vienna will take place on the 28th of January 2022.

TAKE ACTION NOW to push the Municipality of Vienna to withdraw its complaint!

On the 29th of August 2021, BDS-Austria published a social media post with a picture of the famous poster stating “Visit Apartheid” that was stuck on a billboard along with the official logo of the Municipality of Vienna. The post had the sarcastic caption “We are pleased that the City of Vienna also takes note of apartheid and publicly states it”.

In November 2021, a member of BDS-Austria was notified that the Municipality of Vienna officially filed a lawsuit against him. According to the municipality, the BDS movement “incites to hatred against Israeli people” and therefore being publicly associated with BDS would amount to defamation since “the designation of the situation in Israel/Palestine as an “Apartheid” constitutes damage to our reputation”. Read the whole case summary here.

To support the activist and BDS Austria, you can:

Categories
Release

More than 100 Trade Unions, Political Parties and Human Rights Groups Send Letter to EU in Defence of 6 Palestinian Human Rights Organisations

The ELSC joined more than 100 organisations, groups and unions to ask the EU to take strong actions against the unfounded designation of six Palestinian human rights organisations as “terrorist”.

Over 100 European political parties, trade unions, human rights organisations and civil society groups sent a letter to Josep Borell, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, outlining their grave concern at Israel’s decision to label six Palestinian human rights NGOs as “terrorist entities”.

The letter, states that the EU has not done enough to protect these Palestinian groups, calls for a clear rejection of the designation by the EU, and asks the EU to suspend the acceptance of Israel into the highly lucrative Horizon Europe research and development programme. 

Among the signatories of the letter are political parties like Sinn Féin (Ireland), Europe Ecologie Les Verts (France), Parti Communiste Français (PCF), People Before Profit (Ireland), BIJ1 (Netherlands), trade unions including major trade union confederations in Ireland, Italy and France.

Internationally, signatories include the International Federation for Human Rights, The Rights Forum, Via Campesina and others.

Text of the letter below and in PDF.

Brussels, 25 November 2021

Dear High Representative,

As organisations based in Europe, we would like to alert you to the extremely serious situation created by the slander of the State of Israel against six of the most important and internationally renowned Palestinian human rights organisations: Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, Al Haq – Law in the service of men, Bisan Center for Research and Development, Defense for Children International – Palestine, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees.

After their classification as “terrorists” on 22 October, and with the subsequent military banning order on 7 November, they are in great danger: their premises may be invaded or closed down, their equipment confiscated, their leaders and staff arrested and their funding is put in danger. The protection services they provide to the Palestinian population, as well as their ability to inform international bodies about human rights violations in Palestine, are themselves jeopardised by this decision. The European Union must remain true to its own values; it must protect them.

The statement by the EEAS Spokesperson on October 28 was not commensurate with the gravity of this threat. By stating that the EU “takes such allegations extremely serious” and by “engaging Israeli authorities for more information”, it gives weight to allegations against partners that the European Union has known perfectly well for years, and it legitimises the idea that the State of Israel would have a legitimate reason to take up the issue. This is doubly false: firstly because these organisations are subject to Palestinian law, and the State of Israel has no business declaring them as unlawful, and secondly because the Israeli leaders who accuse them are the same ones who could be implicated by the ICC procedures, which themselves could be based on the information and investigation files provided by these NGOs.

We therefore ask you first of all for a much clearer public statement on this issue. In particular, we ask you to:

  • clearly reject the Israeli allegations and question their legitimacy,
  • publicly renew your confidence in these human rights organisations, which are doing  remarkable and indispensable work on the ground,
  •  formally ask the Israeli government to reverse its decisions to designate and subsequently ban them,
  •  inform all donors and financial intermediaries of your rejection of the decisions taken by the  State of Israel and of your confidence in the NGOs in question,
  • officially receive, at your level, the leaders of these NGOs and assure them of your full  support,
  • publicly and financially support the action of the ICC including the case for Palestine.

Beyond this indispensable statement, it is necessary to take action.

The first act that you can take, together with the European Commission of which you are Vice President, concerns the agreement to include Israel in the Horizon Europe research and development programme. While one can imagine that even the simple respect of the July 2013 guidelines was not frankly approved by Israel, the Commission probably wanted to make a “positive gesture” towards Israel by declaring on 18 October that the negotiations were over. We know the result: four days later, the State of Israel launched the most serious offensive in history against Palestinian human rights organisations. A few days later, on 30th October, the Israeli ambassador tore up the report of the UN Human Rights Council at the UN.

In such a context, the signing of this agreement, scheduled for 9 December, would be a disgrace for Europe. We ask you, Mr. High Representative, to take the necessary measures to suspend the signing of this agreement. This is a simple measure of decency. Beyond that, more binding measures will have to be taken if the State of Israel persists in its position.

Sincerely,

  1. European Coordination of Committees and Association for Palestine (ECCP) – Europe
  2. Fédération Internationale pour les droits humains – FIDH
  3. Trócaire – Ireland
  4. Sinn Féin – political party – Ireland
  5. Europe Ecologie Les Verts – political party – France
  6. Confédération générale du travail (CGT) – trade union – France
  7. FIOM-CGIL – trade union – Italy
  8. Irish Congress of Trade Unions – trade union confederation – Ireland
  9. Unite the Union, Ireland Region – trade union – Ireland
  10. UNISON Northern Ireland – trade union – Ireland
  11. People Before Profit – political party – Ireland
  12. Parti Communiste Français (PCF) – political party – France
  13. Parti de Gauche – political party – France 
  14. Ensemble! – political party – France
  15. BIJ1 (Political party) – Netherlands
  16. Mouvement des Jeunes Communistes de France – political party France
  17. Confédération Paysanne – trade union – France
  18. Fórsa SENO Branch – trade union – Ireland
  19. Belfast and District Trades Union Council – trade union – Ireland
  20. Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign – Ireland
  21. Trade Union Friends of Palestine – Ireland
  22. MOC – Movement of Christian Workers – trade union – Belgium
  23. Union syndicale Solidaires – trade union – France
  24. Craigavon Council of Trade Unions – trade union – Ireland
  25. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) – MENA 
  26. European Coordination Via Campesina – Europe 
  27. European Trade Union Network for Justice in Palestine – Europe 
  28. Sadaka – The Ireland Palestine Alliance – Ireland
  29. Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH) – France
  30. Suomen Rauhanpuolustajat – Finnish Peace Committee
  31. Defence for Children International – Switzerland
  32. Defence for Children International – Belgium
  33. Students for Justice in Palestine Dublin City University – Ireland
  34. Fédération Syndicale Unitaire (FSU) – France 
  35. MRAP – France
  36. The Rights Forum – Netherlands
  37. Jewish Voice for Just Peace Ireland – Ireland
  38. Centre for Global Education – Ireland
  39. Cairde Palestine Belfast – Ireland
  40. Gaza Action Ireland – Ireland
  41. Academics for Palestine – Ireland
  42. MENA GROUP/Rete in difesa di (diritti umani e chi li difende) – Italy
  43. Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) – France
  44. Union des Progressistes Juifs de Belgique (UPJB) – Belgium 
  45. Association des Universitaires pour le Respect du Droit International en Palestine (AURDIP)  – France
  46. British Committee for the Universities of Palestine – UK
  47. Plateforme des ONGs Françaises pour la Palestine – France
  48. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Finland
  49. Humanitas-Centre for global learning and cooperation – Slovenia
  50. Association Belgo-Palestinienne – Belgium
  51. France Palestine Mental Health Network – France
  52. Viva Salud – Belgium
  53. Union Juive Française pour la Paix – France
  54. ICAHD Finland – Finland
  55. Deutscher Koordinationskreis Palastina Israel (KOPI) – Germany
  56. European Legal Support Center – Netherlands
  57. Comite Pour Une Paix Juste Au Proche Orient – Luxembourg
  58. Cultura è libertà, una campagna per la Palestina – Italy
  59. AssopacePalestina – Italy
  60. DocP – BDS Nederland – Netherlands
  61. Nederlands Palestina Komitee – Netherlands
  62. Buendnis fuer Gerechtigkeit zwischen Israelis und Palaestinensern e.V. BIP – Germany
  63. BDS Berlin-  Germany
  64. Finnish-Arab Friendship Society – Finland
  65. Association pour le jumelage entre les camps de réfugiés palestiniens et les villes françaises  (AJPF) – France
  66. Pand – Performars and Artists for Peace – Finland
  67. Društvo UP Jesenice – Slovenia
  68. Belgian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (BACBI) – Belgium
  69. Mouvement de la Paix – France
  70. Une Autre Voix Juive – France
  71. Association des Travailleurs Maghrébins de France – France
  72. Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine – France
  73. Fédération des Tunisiens pour une Citoyenneté des deux Rives (FTCR) – France
  74. Vrede vzw – Belgium
  75. Dynamo International – Belgium
  76. Les Femmes en Noir – France
  77. Rete Romana di Solidarietà con il Popolo Palestinese – Italy
  78. Rete Antirazzista – Firenze, Italy
  79. Association France Palestine Solidarité Nîmes, France
  80. Association “Pour Jérusalem” – France
  81. Odv Salaam Ragazzi Dell’Olivo Comitato Di Tireste – Italy
  82. Forum Palestine Citoyenneté – France
  83. Comité de Vigilance pour une Paix réelle au Proche-Orient – France
  84. Assopace Palestina Firenze – Italy
  85. Chrétiens de la Méditerranée – France
  86. Associazione Cinema e Diritti – Italy
  87. Associazione di Amicizia Italo-Palestinese NLUS – Italy
  88. Comitato Pistoiese per la Palestina – Italy
  89. Donne in nero Italia – Italy
  90. COSPE – Italy
  91. CRED – centro di ricerca ed elaborazione per la democrazia – Italy 
  92. Campagna Ponti e non Muri di Pax Christi Italia – Italy
  93. Giuristi Democratici – Italy
  94. CPPI Saint-Denis [ Collectif Paix Palestine Israël] – France
  95. New Weapons Research Group – Italy
  96. Women in Black Vienna – Austria 
  97. Slovene Philanthropy –  Slovenia
  98. Not in Our Name – For a Just Peace in the Middle East – Czech Republic
  99. Collectif Faty Koumba – France
  100. La Courneuve Palestine – France
  101. Comité pour le Respect des Libertés et des Droits de l’Homme en Tunisie – France
  102. BDS Italia – Italy
  103. Stichting – Groningen-Jabalya – Netherlands
  104. UK-Palestine Mental Health Network – UK
  105. Wilpf – Finland
  106. Ipri-ccp – Italy
  107. Comunità delle Piagge – Italy
  108. Aderisco a nome del Comitato varesino er la Palestina – Italy
  109. Pro Palestina – Italy
  110. Stradafacendo – Italy
Categories
Release Restrictive Policies

Joint Letter: The International Community Must Support and Protect Palestinian Civil Society

The ELSC joined 241 organisations to express solidarity with Palestinian civil society and human rights defenders after the latest attempt from the Israeli government to silence them. We collectively urge the international community to take all necessary measures to protect them.

As a group of 235 regional and international organizations, we express our full solidarity with Palestinian civil society and human rights defenders as Israel continues to escalate its attacks to shut down critical human rights work and silence opposition to its occupation of Palestinian territory and apartheid over the Palestinian people as a whole. We urge the international community to take all necessary action to support and protect Palestinian civil society and human rights defenders and ensure the continuation of their invaluable work.

On 19 October 2021, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz designated six leading Palestinian civil society organizations as terrorist organizations, including Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, Al-Haq Law in the Service of Man (Al-Haq), Bisan Center for Research and Development, Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees (UPWC).

The Israeli government has continued to intensify its attacks on independent Palestinian human rights organizations and their staff, who regularly face smear campaigns, spurious accusations of links to terrorism as well as threats and intimidation, travel bans and movement restrictions, and arrest for their work. Independent Israeli and international organizations have also been targeted by Israel for their work documenting and advocating against Israel’s human rights violations. Israel’s actions clearly follow the pattern set by authoritarian states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and around the world.

This unprecedented designation is merely the latest escalation in Israel’s widespread and systematic institutionalized campaign that has aimed to silence and discredit any Palestinian individual or organization that dares seek accountability for Israel’s grave human rights violations, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The “persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid” is one of the methods used by Israel to maintain its domination and oppression over the Palestinian people.

On 18 October 2021, the Israeli Interior Minister announced the official revocation of the Jerusalem residency status of Palestinian-French human rights defender and lawyer Salah Hammouri based on “breach of allegiance” to the State of Israel, opening the way for more widespread use of residency revocation on this basis, putting thousands of Palestinians in Jerusalem at risk of arbitrary and punitive measures leading to their forcible transfer.

UN experts condemned the designations of the six NGOs as terrorist organizations “a frontal attack on the Palestinian human rights movement, and on human rights everywhere” and called upon the international community to “defend the defenders.” The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called on Israel to revoke the designations, affirming that “claiming rights before a UN or other international body is not an act of terrorism, advocating for the rights of women in the occupied Palestinian territory is not terrorism, and providing legal aid to detained Palestinians is not terrorism”. The designation has also been condemned by other international actors, including members of the US House of Representatives, European Parliamentarians as well as international civil society.

The designation presents a challenge to the international community, especially democratic states that speak out and support independent human rights organizations and defenders in other parts of the world. Remaining silent is insufficient given the urgent support and protection needs of the six organizations that are now at an additional risk of raids, confiscation of property and materials, closure of bank accounts, arrest of staff members, and closure of their offices. Israel’s attacks against these organizations pose an existential threat to independent Palestinian human rights organizations and civil society who work to monitor and document violations of human rights and provide basic services to the Palestinian people.

We call upon the international community to publicly condemn and reject Israel’s designation of Palestinian human rights and civil society organizations as “terrorist organizations” as an internationally wrongful act, to call for Israel to immediately rescind the designation, and to demand Israel repeal its Anti-Terrorism Law (2016) as it does not meet basic human rights standards and to end all other actions that deny Palestinians their inalienable human rights. We also urge members of the international community to publicly show support for the six organizations and Palestinian civil society at large.

Further, the international community, especially the European Union and its member states who are key supporters of and donors to Palestinian civil society, should ensure that banks and financial institutions in their jurisdiction are notified Israel’s designation of Palestinian organizations is unfounded and inapplicable.

Signatories:

  1. 11.11.11
  2. Abna Al-Quds Club
  3. Action for Change and Democracy in Algeria
  4. AFKAR for Educational & Cultural Development
  5. Agir pour le Changement et la Démocratie en Algérie (ACDA)
  6. Al Ataa Charitable Society
  7. Albanian Human Rights Group
  8. Al Dameer Association for Human Rights
  9. Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Man
  10. Al Karmel Culture and Social Development Association
  11. Al-Marsad Arab Human Rights Center in Golan Heights
  12. Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
  13. Altawasol Forum Society
  14. Aman Organization Against Discrimination
  15. ANSWER Coalition
  16. Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem
  17. Arab Canadian Lawyers Association
  18. Arab Center for Agricultural Development
  19. Artists for Palestine UK
  20. Asha Parivar
  21. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  22. Asociación Paz con Dignidad
  23. Association Africaine de Défense droit de l’Homme (ASADHO)
  24. Association Belgo-Palestinienne WB
  25. Association des Magistrats Tunisiens
  26. Association des Universitaires pour le Respect du Droit International en Palestine (AURDIP)
  27. Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS)
  28. Association Internationale de Soutien aux Prisonniers Politiques
  29. Association Nachaz
  30. Association pour le Droit à la Différence (ADD)
  31. Association Tunisienne des Femmes Démocrates
  32. Association Tunisienne de Soutien des Minorités
  33. Atfaluna Society for Deaf Children
  34. Australia Palestine Advocacy Network
  35. Australian Centre for International Justice
  36. Bait Lahia Youth Association Center
  37. BankTrack – Netherlands
  38. Basma Society for Culture and Arts
  39. Basmeh & Zeitooneh
  40. Baytna
  41. Beity
  42. Belady Foundation for Human Rights
  43. BDS País Valencià
  44. Broederlijk Delen
  45. Bytes For All
  46. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  47. Canada Palestine Association
  48. Canadian BDS Coalition
  49. Canadians for Peace and Justice in Kashmir
  50. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
  51. Canada Palestine Friendship Society
  52. Carleton University Students for Justice in Palestine
  53. Catholics for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land
  54. Center for Civil Liberties
  55. Center for Constitutional Rights
  56. Center for Defense of Liberties & Civil Rights (Hurryyat)
  57. Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR)
  58. Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO)
  59. Central Blood Bank Society
  60. Coalition of African Lesbians
  61. Committee on the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland)
  62. Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ)
  63. Community Media Center
  64. Conectas Direitos Humanos
  65. Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG)
  66. Congregations of St. Joseph
  67. Citizen News Service (CNS)
  68. Citoyenneté, Développement, Cultures et migrations des deux Rives
  69. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  70. CNCD-11.11.11
  71. Collectif des Familles de Disparus en Algérie (CFDA)
  72. Cooperazione Internazionale Sud Sud (CISS)
  73. Cultura è libertà una campagna per la Palestina
  74. De-Colonizer
  75. Defence for Children International – Italy
  76. DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  77. Defender Center for Human Rights
  78. Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
  79. docP – BDS Netherlands
  80. Dominican Sisters of Blauvelt, NY
  81. Dr. Haider Abdel Shafi Center for Culture & Development
  82. Edmonton Run for Palestine
  83. European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP)
  84. European Legal Support Center (ELSC)
  85. European Trade Union Network For Justice in Palestine (ETUN)
  86. Fares Arab Foundation for Development
  87. FIAN International
  88. Finnish-Arab Friendship Society
  89. Free Gaza Australia
  90. Fundación Mundubat
  91. Gaza Action Ireland
  92. General and Autonomous Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA)
  93. General Confederation of the Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN)
  94. Gibanje za pravice Palestincev
  95. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
  96. Grassroots AlQuds
  97. Groupe LOTUS
  98. Grup de Suport a Juani Rishmawi
  99. Gruppo Ibriq per la cultura e la causa Palestinese
  100. Hassan El Saadawi Association for Democracy and Equality
  101. Human Rights and Democracy Center (SHAMS)
  102. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
  103. International Accountability Project
  104. International Association for the Support of Political Prisoners
  105. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  106. International Commission to Support Palestinian Rights
  107. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  108. International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW AP)
  109. Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign
  110. Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU)
  111. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
  112. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) – Finland
  113. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) – Germany
  114. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions UK
  115. Jabalia Rehabilitation Society
  116. Joussour De Citoyenneté
  117. Jurists without Chains
  118. Justice for Iran
  119. Justitia Center for Legal Protection of Human Rights in Algeria
  120. Kairos Ireland
  121. Kairos Sabeel Netherlands
  122. Kenya Human Rights Commission
  123. Land Research Center
  124. Leadership Team of the Dominican Sisters and Associates of Racine, WI
  125. League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)
  126. Lebanese Center for Human Rights
  127. Libya Al-Mostakbal
  128. Libyan Center for Freedom of the Press
  129. Libyan Network for Legal Aid
  130. Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace
  131. Ligue Algérienne de Défense des Droits de L’homme
  132. Ligue des droits de l’Homme
  133. Ligue Suisse des Droits de l’Homme – Genève
  134. MA’AN Development Center
  135. MADRE – USA
  136. Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights
  137. Makan
  138. MakeShiftPublishing BV
  139. Manushya Foundation
  140. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
  141. MENA Rights Group
  142. Mwatana for Human Rights
  143. Nā Pua Kūʻē – Hawaiʻi Dissenters
  144. National Autonomous Union of Public Administration Staff (SNAPAP)
  145. National Fisheries Solidarity
  146. National Syndicate of Tunisian Journalists (SNJT)
  147. Netherlands Palestine Committee
  148. Niagara Movement for Justice in Palestine-Israel (NMJPI)
  149. NOVACT
  150. New Weapons Research Group onlus
  151. Oakville Palestinian Rights Association
  152. Odhikar
  153. One Justice
  154. Organisation 23_10 d’Appui au Processus de Transition Démocratique
  155. Österreichische Liga für Menschenrechte
  156. Our Revolution Northern Virginia (ORNOVA)
  157. Palestina Solidariteit vzw
  158. Palästina Spricht
  159. Palestinakomiteen i Larvik-Sandefjord
  160. Palestine Solidarity Alliance of South Africa
  161. Palestine Solidarity Campaign – Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland)
  162. Palestine Solidarity Campaign – Gauteng (Johannesburg)
  163. Palestine Solidarity Campaign – Cape Town
  164. Palestinian Solidarity Group at Mount Holyoke College
  165. Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA)
  166. Palestinian Assembly for Liberation
  167. Palestinian Children in Israeli Military Prisons (PIM)
  168. Palestinian Counseling Center
  169. Palestinian Youth Movement
  170. Pax Christi Flanders
  171. Pax Christi USA
  172. PeaceWomen Across the Globe
  173. Plan International – Jordan
  174. Platform of French NGOs for Palestine
  175. Portuguese League for Human Rights – Civitas
  176. Princeton Committee on Palestine
  177. Project48
  178. Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice
  179. Racial Literacy Groups
  180. Réseau International des Droits Humains (RIDH)
  181. Rumbo a Gaza
  182. Salaam Ragazzi dell’Olivo, Comitato di Trieste
  183. Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
  184. Sareyyet Ramallah
  185. Sexual Rights Intiative
  186. Sheffield Labour Friends of Palestine
  187. Sinistra Italiana
  188. Socialist Party (India)
  189. SOLSOC
  190. South African BDS Coalition
  191. South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP)
  192. SumOfUs
  193. Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
  194. Syrians for Truth and Justice (STJ)
  195. Syrian Justice and Accountability Center (SJAC)
  196. The Community Action Center at Al-Quds University
  197. The Cultural Forum Center
  198. The Culture and Free Thought Association
  199. The National Society for Democracy and Law
  200. The Palestine Committee of Norway
  201. The Palestine Project
  202. The Palestinian Developmental Women Studies Association (PDWSA)
  203. The Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO)
  204. The Rights Forum
  205. The Society of Women Graduates
  206. Toronto Palestine Film Festival
  207. Trade Union Friends of Palestine
  208. Transnational Institute
  209. Trócaire
  210. Tunisian Association of Defending Individual Liberties (ADLI)
  211. Tunisian Association of the Democratic Women (ATFD)
  212. Tunisian Youth Movement in Germany
  213. UK-Palestine Mental Health Network
  214. Union Aid Abroad APHEDA
  215. Union Juive Française pour la Paix (UJFP)
  216. Union Syndicale Solidaires
  217. United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine – Israel
  218. Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights
  219. USA Palestine Mental Health Network
  220. Visualizing Palestine
  221. Viva Salud
  222. WESPAC Foundation, Inc.
  223. Women Against Violence
  224. Women in Black Vienna
  225. Women Now For Development
  226. Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC)
  227. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
  228. Women’s Studies Centre
  229. Youth Development Association (YDA)
  230. Youth for Tawergha
  231. Zochrot
  232. Committee for the Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia
  233. Just Peace Advocates
  234. Business and Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC)
  235. Egyptian Front for Human Rights
  236. Palestine Link
  237. Riposte International
  238. Belgian Campaign for an Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
  239. We Network
  240. Fagforbundet
  241. Associació Hèlia
  242. EuroMed Rights

Read the letter in Arabic

Categories
Release Restrictive Policies

UK government dismisses latest attempt by UK Lawyers for Israel to harm Palestinian civil society

For many years now, politically-motivated actors have used legal fora to inflict damage on civil society organisations supporting Palestinian rights, by attempting to silence them and delegitimise their work. These attacks, generally referred to as “lawfare”, are mostly conducted by disinformation groups supporting Israel’s occupation and apartheid regime, such as: NGO Monitor, Regavim, Shurat HaDin, International Legal Forum, Lawfare Project, and UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI).

UKLFI in particular is a legal advocacy and campaigning organisation based in the UK that has been attempting to smear and disrupt the work of Palestinian human rights groups and their partners for years. While its disinformation campaigns have taken a toll on civil society, its attempts to get official bodies to accept its defamatory claims have been largely unsuccessful; its allegations have been found to be groundless on numerous occasions. Just between 2017 and 2019 UKLFI submitted several complaints to the government charities’ regulator in the UK against at least 3 charities, all of which were rejected. Moreover, on 9 March 2020, UKLFI was required to issue a public apology after being sued in a defamation case (which was settled) for having accused DCI – Palestine of providing financial and material support to proscribed organisations.

In one of its latest attempt to delegitimise Palestinian civil society, UKLFI submitted a complaint to the UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (UK NCP) against PricewaterhouseCoopers Palestine Limited (PwC Palestine) for an alleged violation of the OECD Guidelines (the Guidelines). In this case, the lawfare organisation claimed that PwC Palestine breached the Guidelines by providing its audit service to two Palestinian NGOs, Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), a leading agricultural development organisation which has been attacked for supporting Palestinian farmers in Area C of the West Bank, which Israel has targeted for continued settlement expansion, and DCI-P (once again). The complainant raised inflammatory allegations arguing that the latter Palestinian organisations had links with a proscribed organisation in the UK and that PwC Palestine had failed to expose such links.

In its response, PwC Palestine explained that it undertook thorough client acceptance checks as well as periodic continuance checks to comply with legal, regulatory and ethical obligations imposed by the Guidelines. Moreover, the respondent argued that “UKLFI’s allegations of links between PFLP and the 2 NGO charities are not well supported or evidenced.” On 24 September 2021 the UK NCP issued the final decision, concluding that the complaint was unfounded as PwC Palestine “had appropriate policies and procedures in place to obtain reasonable assurance that its clients were upholding appropriate legal, compliance and ethical standards and also conducted reasonable investigations following the allegations by UKLFI.

Such a decision plays a crucial role in the struggle of global civil society against the phenomenon of shrinking civic space, as it exposes the groundlessness and unreliability of the accusations that lawfare actors such as UKLFI use to interrupt the activities of human rights organisations. A recent report from Charity & Security Network, a US-based organisation that protects the ability of nonprofits to carry out peacebuilding, humanitarian, and human rights missions, delves into the harm caused by these lawfare actors and offers policy recommendations for governments, donors, and civil society groups.

Categories
Release

New report exposes billions in European financial support to companies in illegal Israeli settlements

672 European financial institutions have financial relationships with 50 businesses that are actively involved with illegal Israeli settlements. These financial institutions provided US$ 114 billion in the form of loans and underwritings and held investments to the amount of US$ 141 billion in shares and bonds of these companies. This is the key finding of a new research report published today by a cross-regional coalition of Palestinian and European NGOs, which looked at financial flows between January 2018 and May 2021.

The “Don’t Buy into Occupation” (DBIO) coalition is a joint project between 25 Palestinian, regional and European organisations based in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). The coalition investigates the financial relationships between businesses involved in the illegal Israeli settlement enterprise in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and European Financial Institutions (FIs).*

Providing economic oxygen

Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and constitute acts which incur individual criminal liability as war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet European financial institutions continue to invest billions into companies that are actively involved with the Israeli settlement enterprise.

Research by the DBIO coalition shows that between 2018 and May 2021, 672 European financial institutions, including banks, asset managers, insurance companies, and pension funds, had financial relationships with 50 businesses that are actively involved with Israeli settlements.** US$ 114 billion was provided in the form of loans and underwritings. As of May 2021, European investors also held US$ 141 billion in shares and bonds of these companies.

These businesses and financial institutions play a critical role in facilitating the economic viability growth of the Israeli settlement enterprise. As the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk, writes in a foreword to the DBIO report: “The involvement of these corporations with the settlements – through investments, banking loans, resource extraction, infrastructure contracts and equipment and product supply agreements – provides them with the indispensable economic oxygen they require to grow and thrive.”

Corporate responsibility

These businesses, creditors and investors have a responsibility to ensure that they are not involved in violations of international law and are not complicit in international crimes, and to address any adverse human rights impacts arising from their business activities and financial relationships.

Companies are expected to have a rapid response and to consider responsible disengagement. International financial institutions, including banks and pension funds, have a responsibility to use their leverage to ensure their investee companies act responsibly and in line with international law standards, and to divest from those who are unable or unwilling to do so.

Recently, several financial institutions and companies have taken up their responsibility by divesting from business enterprises linked to Israeli settlements. The two most recent and important examples are those of Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) and the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG). KLP is Norway’s largest pensions company, who in July 2021, divested from 16 companies linked to Israel’s settlement enterprise. In a similar vein, GPFG announced in September 2021 that it will exclude three companies that are actively involved with Israeli settlements. The 19 companies excluded by KLP and GPFG were listed in the UN database of businesses involved in certain activities relating to Israeli settlements in the OPT, mandated by the Human Rights Council in 2016, and published in February 2020.

“Despite the illegal nature of Israeli settlements under international law, European financial institutions continue to throw a financial lifeline to companies operating in the settlements. European financial institutions should take up their responsibility and follow the example of KLP and GPFG. They should end all investments and financial flows into Israeli settlements, and not buy into the Israeli occupation”, concludes Willem Staes, coordinator of the DBIO coalition.

The full report can be found here: https://dontbuyintooccupation.org

The executive summary is available in:


The ELSC is part of the coalition along with the following organisations:

  • DBIO member organisations are : 11.11.11- Koepel van de Internationale Solidariteit; Al-Haq; Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS); Banktrack; Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS); Centrale nationale des employés (CNE); Centre National de Coopération au Développement (CNCD-11.11.11); European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP); European Legal Support Center (ELSC); European Trade Union Network for Justice in Palestine (ETUN); Fagforbundet- Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees; Fairfin; Handel og Kontor i Norge (HK Norway); Intersindical Alternativa de Catalunya (IAC); Intal; International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH); Landsorganisasjonen i Norge (LO Norway); Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA); NOVACT – Institut Internacional per l’Acció Noviolenta; Palestinian Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD); Palestine Solidarity Campaign; PAX; SUDS; The Rights Forum; and Trócaire.

** The 50 companies for which this research found financial relationships with European financial institutions, are: ACS Group, Airbnb, Alstom, Altice Europe, Ashtrom Group, Atlas Copco, Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Bezeq Group, Booking Holdings, Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF), Caterpillar, Cellcom Israel, Cemex, CETCO Mineral Technology Group, Cisco Systems, CNH Industrial, Delek Group, Delta Galil Industries, DXC Technology, eDreams ODIGEO, Elbit Systems, Electra Group, Energix Renewable Energies, Expedia Group, First International Bank of Israel (FIBI), General Mills, HeidelbergCement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Israel Discount Bank, Magal Security Systems, MAN Group, Manitou Group, Matrix IT, Mivne Group, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Motorola Solutions, Partner Communications Company, Paz Oil Company, Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Marketing 2006, RE/MAX Holdings, Shapir Engineering and Industry, Shikun & Binui, Shufersal, Siemens, Solvay, Terex Corporation, Tripadvisor, Volvo Group, and WSP Global.

The report shows investments in a company at the group level, regardless of other activities or the percentage of turnover it derives from settlement-related activities. It is impossible for a financial institution to be sure that the financial services it provides to a company will not be used for activities linked to the settlement enterprise.

Categories
Release

Open Letter to impose a comprehensive two-way arms embargo Israel

The ELSC joined a global coalition of leaders from civil society to academia, art, media, business, politics, indigenous and faith communities, and people of conscience around the world– to call upon the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to act decisively to put an end to Israel’s use of arms and military equipment for the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights against Palestinian civilians by immediately imposing a comprehensive two-way arms embargo on Israel.

Read the whole letter below:

Open Letter to the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty on the Need to Impose a Comprehensive Two-Way Arms Embargo on Israel

We, the undersigned global coalition of leaders –from civil society to academia, art, media, business, politics, indigenous and faith communities, and people of conscience around the world– call upon the States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to act decisively to put an end to Israel’s notorious use of arms and military equipment for the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights against Palestinian civilians by immediately imposing a comprehensive two-way arms embargo on Israel.

In the spring of 2021, the world once again watched in horror as Israeli occupying forces attacked defenceless Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and inside Israel. Palestinian civilians peacefully protesting against colonisation of their land were assaulted with live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, sound bombs, tear gas and skunk water. Israel’s deadly military aggression against the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip was the fourth in a decade. Over 11 days, 248 Palestinians were killed, including 66 children. Thousands were wounded, and the reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons on hospitals, schools, food security, water, electricity and shelter continue to affect millions.

This systematic brutality, perpetrated throughout the past seven decades of Israel’s colonialism, apartheid, pro-longed illegal belligerent occupation, persecution, and closure, is only possible because of the complicity of some governments and corporations around the world.

Symbolic statements of condemnation alone will not put an end to this suffering. In accordance with the relevant rules of the ATT, States Parties have legal obligations to put an end to irresponsible and often complicit trade of conventional arms that undermines international peace and security, facilitates commission of egregious crimes, and threatens the international legal order.

Under Article 6(3) of the ATT, States Parties undertook not to authorise any transfer of conventional arms if they have knowledge at the time of authorisation that arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which they are a Party.

Under Articles 7 and 11, they undertook not to authorise any export of conventional arms, munitions, parts and components that would, inter alia, undermine peace and security or be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

It is clear that arms exports to Israel are inconsistent with these obligations. Invariably, Israel has shown that it uses arms to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as documented by countless United Nations bodies and civil society organisations worldwide. Military exports to Israel also clearly enabled, facilitated and maintained Israel’s decades-long settler-colonial and apartheid regime imposed over the Palestinian people as a whole.

Similarly, arms imports from Israel are wholly inconsistent with obligations under the ATT. Israeli military and industry sources openly boast that their weapons and technologies are “combat proven” – in other words, field-tested on Palestinian civilians “human test subjects”. When States import Israeli arms, they are encouraging it to keep bombing Palestinian civilians and persist in its unlawful practices. No one –neither Israel, nor arms manufacturers in ATT States parties– should be allowed to profit from the killing or maiming of Palestinian civilians.

It is thus abundantly clear that imposing a two-way arms embargo on Israel is both a legal and a moral obligation. ATT States Parties must immediately terminate any current, and prohibit any future transfers of conventional arms, munitions, parts and components referred to in Article 2(1), Article 3 or Article 4 of the ATT to Israel, until it ends its illegal belligerent occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory and complies fully with its obligations under international law. Pending such an embargo, all States must immediately suspend all transfers of military equipment, assistance and munitions to Israel.

A failure to take these actions entails a heavy responsibility for the grave suffering of civilians – more deaths, more suffering, as thousands of Palestinian men, women and children continue to bear the brutality of a colonial belligerent occupying force– which would result in discrediting the ATT itself. It also renders States parties complicit in internationally wrongful acts through the aiding or abetting of international crimes.  A failure in taking action could also result in invoking the individual criminal responsibility of individuals of these States for aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in accordance with Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Justice will remain elusive so long as Israel’s unlawful occupation, settler-colonialism, apartheid regime, and persecution and institutionalised oppression of the Palestinian people are allowed to continue, and so long as States continue to be complicit in the occupying Power’s crimes by trading weapons with it.

In conclusion, we believe that the ATT can make a difference in the Palestinian civilians’ lives. It has the potential, if implemented in good faith, to spare countless protected persons from suffering. If our call to stop leaving the Palestinian people behind when it comes to implementation of the ATT is ignored, the raison d’être of the ATT will be shattered.

Joining organisations:

  1. Action Sécurité Ethique Républicaines
  2. Adalah Justice Project
  3. Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association
  4. AFPS 63
  5. Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
  6. Aldameer Association for Human Rights
  7. Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Man
  8. Alrowwad Cultural and Arts Society
  9. American Muslims for Palestine
  10. Anglican Pacifist Fellowship
  11. Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem (ARIJ)
  12. Arab Canadian Lawyers Association
  13. Arab Organization for Human Rights
  14. Argenteuil Solidarité Palestine
  15. Asociación Americana de Juristas
  16. Association Belgo-Palestinienne WB
  17. Association femmes plurielles
  18. Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS)
  19. AssoPacePalestina
  20. Australia Palestine Advocacy Network
  21. Australian Centre for International Justice
  22. Australians For Palestine
  23. Badayl
  24. BDS Australia
  25. Begian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
  26. Campagne BDS France
  27. Canadian BDS Coalition
  28. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
  29. Center for Constitutional Rights
  30. Center for International Policy
  31. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Estratégicos para la Seguridad y el Desarrollo Social CIESED A.C.
  32. CNAPD – Coordination Nationale d’Action pour la Paix et la Démocratie
  33. Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine
  34. Collectif 69 de Soutien au Peuple Palestinien
  35. Collectif BDS 57
  36. Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine
  37. Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines
  38. Columban missionaries Britain
  39. Columbia Law Students for Palestine
  40. Combatants for Peace
  41. Comitato BDS Campania
  42. Comité de Solidaridad con la Causa Árabe
  43. Comité pour une Paix Juste au Proche-Orient asbl
  44. Community Action Center – Al-Quds University
  45. Confederación Intersindical Gallega (CIG)
  46. Cultura è Libertà, una campagna per la Palestina
  47. Dagropass
  48. De Palestijnse gemeenschap in Nederland
  49. Defense for Children -Palestine (DCI-Palestine)
  50. Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
  51. docP – BDS Netherlands
  52. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights
  53. European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP)
  54. European Legal Support Center
  55. Femmes Unies pour la Paix dans la région des Grands Lacs
  56. FILEF Sydney Federation of Italian Migrant Workers
  57. Finnish-Arab Friendship Society
  58. Friends of Palestine Tasmania Inc
  59. Gaza Action Ireland
  60. Gesellschaft Schweiz Palästina GSP/ASP
  61. Global Kairos Asia Pacific Solidarity For Palestine (GKAPS)
  62. Good Shepherd Collective
  63. Housing and Land Rights Network
  64. Human Rights and Democratic Participation Center “SHAMS”
  65. Human Rights Network Nigeria
  66. ICAHD Finland
  67. ICAHD UK
  68. Independent Jewish Voices Canada
  69. Indian Writers Forum
  70. Indo Palestine Solidarity Forum
  71. International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD)
  72. International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific
  73. Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign
  74. Jewish Voice For Peace
  75. Jews for Palestinian Right of Return
  76. Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Juste
  77. Karapatan
  78. Kenya Human Rights Commission
  79. Labor for Palestine
  80. Manushya Foundation
  81. National Association of Democratic Lawyers (South Africa)
  82. National Justice & Peace Network (NJPN)
  83. National Lawyers Guild, Palestine Subcommittee
  84. Nederlands Palestina Komitee
  85. Newweapons research group
  86. Niagara Movement for Justice in Palestine-Israel (NMJPI)
  87. North Notts Unite Community
  88. NOVACT
  89. Oakville Palestinian Rights Association
  90. Palestine Solidarity Network – Edmonton
  91. Palestinian and Jewish Unity
  92. Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)
  93. Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall)
  94. Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (PNGO)
  95. Pax Christi International
  96. Pax Christi, England and Wales
  97. Paz con Dignidad
  98. Platform of French NGOs for Palestine
  99. Salaam ragazzi dell’Olivo, comitato di Trieste
  100. Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
  101. SODePAZ
  102. Solutions Not Punishment Collaborative
  103. The Civic Coalition for Palestinians Right in Jérusalem
  104. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
  105. The Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center (JLAC)
  106. The National Association of Human Rights Defenders 
  107. The Oakville Palestinian Rights Association
  108. The Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC)
  109. The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy-MIFTAH
  110. UJFP French Jewish union for peace
  111. Union syndicale Solidaires
  112. US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
  113. US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
  114. Visualizing Palestine
  115. Vrede vzw
  116. Vredesactie
  117. War on Want
  118. Women for Palestine
  119. Women in Black Vienna
  120. Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling

    Joining individuals
  121. Ahmed Ben
  122. Ahmed Reda Tolba
  123. Alaa Shalaby
  124. Alaaeddine Tatak
  125. Aline Shaban
  126. Amin Abbas
  127. Andrea Balduzzi
  128. Angie Mindel
  129. Ann McNicholas
  130. Anne Peacey
  131. Ashley Tellis
  132. Atamjit Singh
  133. Audrey J Bomse
  134. Badee M.T. Aldwaik
  135. Baruti Likoyi
  136. Bernadette McPhee
  137. Chirag Shah
  138. Claudia Karas
  139. Claudia Schiavelli
  140. Denise Peillon
  141. Denotter JJ
  142. Devaki Khanna
  143. Dr. Ibrahim Lada’a
  144. Dr. Nerina Cecchin
  145. Egbert Harmsen
  146. Marc Fayard
  147. Firoz Ahmad
  148. Flavia Lepre
  149. Françoise Abadie
  150. Frstot Marie-Paule
  151. Gabriel Mondragón Toledo
  152. Geeta Kapur
  153. Geeta Kapur
  154. Georges Franco
  155. Gillard Francois
  156. Gina Cardosi
  157. Githa Hariharan
  158. Gregory Kotoy
  159. Gyan Prakash
  160. Haidi Ali Muhammad Eltayeb
  161. Hélène Le Cacheux
  162. Herman De Ley
  163. Huwaida Arraf
  164. Ian Ampleford
  165. Ian Mc Cabe
  166. Indu Chandrasekhar
  167. Jake Javanshir
  168. James Dickins
  169. James Lafferty
  170. John King
  171. Joop Hoekstra
  172. Julia Auf Dem Brinke
  173. Julie Hart
  174. Kalyani Chaudhuri
  175. Karel Arnaut
  176. Karin Brothers
  177. Karin Verelst
  178. Kathryn Kelly
  179. Kellie Tranter
  180. Lauren Speiser
  181. Laurent De Wangen
  182. Lee Rhiannon
  183. Luisa Morgantini
  184. M.N. Harakeh
  185. Madeline Lutjeharms
  186. Maha Abdallah
  187. Maha Alami
  188. Malini Bhattacharya
  189. Mani Shankar Aiyar
  190. Marcy Newman
  191. Maria Bartolacci
  192. Marjorie Cohn
  193. Martin Mavenjina
  194. Massimiliano Masini
  195. Maxime Florentin
  196. Maya Devi
  197. Michael Letwin
  198. Michel Gevers
  199. Mohamad Arouki
  200. Mohamed Aboelazm
  201. Mohammad Al Nabulsi
  202. Mohan Rao
  203. Monique Vincent
  204. Muralidharan K
  205. Nalini Nayak
  206. Nandini Sundar
  207. Naresh Dadhich
  208. Nasir Tyabji
  209. Navdeep Mathur
  210. Nick Deane
  211. Nozomi Takahashi
  212. Oishik Sircar
  213. P A Azeez
  214. Pamela Blakelock
  215. Pamela Philipose
  216. Paola Manduca
  217. Patrick Lechopier
  218. Persis Ginwalla
  219. Pierre Bordone
  220. Pushpa Achanta
  221. Pushpamala N
  222. Raffaele Spiga
  223. Rajni Palriwala
  224. Rev Joseph Ryan
  225. Rey Asis
  226. Rudolf Knutti
  227. S. Raghunandana
  228. Salim Yusufji
  229. Sellin Jean-Christophe
  230. Shafey Kidwai
  231. Sharib Aqleem Ali
  232. Sigour Brigitte
  233. Sonia Fayman
  234. Stephen Flaherty
  235. Sue Ingham
  236. Sumanta Banerjee
  237. Terri Ginsberg
  238. Valter Mutt
  239. Vinay Bharadwaj
  240. Vincent Basabé
  241. Winfried Belz
  242. Yousuf Saeed
  243. Yves Goaer
  244. Yves Jardin

Categories
Release

ELSC Year-in-Review: 2020

Today the ELSC announces the release of our 2020 Year-in-Review, which provides an overview our work, achievements and cases in the defence of Palestinian rights advocacy in Europe during 2020.

In 2020, we responded to 39 cases of individuals, groups and organisations who faced repression for their advocacy in 11 European countries. Examples of our work included assisting students and academics in campus disciplinary proceedings for false and inflammatory allegations of antisemitism. In 23 of the cases, we supported litigation or legal defence outside of courts by working with our network of lawyers and partner organisations, and preparing legal opinions, memos and submissions.

Based on extensive ELSC monitoring of repression of advocacy for Palestinian rights across Europe, with a focus on the UK and Netherlands, we expanded our incidents and legal database and raised awareness about unlawful restrictions of fundamental rights and civic space faced by the Palestine solidarity movement in Europe.

Reflecting on our 2020, ELSC Programme Director, Giovanni Fassina shares:

As we move forward with our work in 2021, in times of growing global mobilization for Palestinian rights, we hope to continue our work in support of the movement. Yet, the ELSC’s work is only possible thanks to the manifold engagement of our friends, including our partner organisations around the world and institutional donors and individuals who have provided generous donations. For this, I and the ELSC team are deeply grateful.”

Click here to read the full report

Categories
Release

Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur

The ELSC has welcomed the opportunity to make a submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, for her 2021 Human Rights Council report.

This year annual thematic report, to be presented to the Human Rights Council at its 47th session in June 2021, is focusing on disinformation and the human rights impacts of measures which different stakeholders – from states to online platforms and others – take to combat disinformation.

Since early 2019, ELSC has been closely monitoring violations of the right to freedom of expression for advocates of Palestinian rights in several EU countries and compile a database of incidents, case law and legal materials.

The submission responds to question 1 of the submission guide: “What do you believe are the key challenges raised by disinformation? What measures would you recommend to address them?

In the first section, we argue that the campaign led by the Israeli government and several politically motivated Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to label the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction movement (BDS) and its supporters as inherently antisemitic amounts to disinformation.

In the second section, we show that this campaign resulted in the adoption of non-legally binding motions in Germany and Austria, at both national and regional level, designating the BDS as antisemitic.

The third section describes the negative impact of these anti-BDS motions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and assembly of BDS activists and individuals and civil society organisations advocating for Palestinian rights in Europe.

Demonstrating that these motions have a significant chilling effect that results in the worrisome partial erasure of Palestine from the domain of legitimate public debate, we recommend the Special Rapporteur to:

  1. Issue a statement recognizing that the campaign stigmatizing the BDS movement as antisemitic amounts to disinformation;
  2. Address a second official letter of concern to the German and Austrian authorities about the implementations of the anti BDS motions.

Read the full submission.

Categories
Release

New legal brief finds HS2 Ltd. is permitted to excluded CAF from building UK’s high speed railway

A new legal brief produced jointly by the European Legal Support Center and Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights has found that it is legal for HS2 Ltd. – the company building the UK’s new high speed railway HS2 – to exclude from its procurement process companies which are complicit in ongoing breaches of international law, such as Spanish construction company Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF).

CAF is currently leading the expansion of the Jerusalem Light Railway (JLR) which gathers together expanding Jewish-only settlements in and around occupied East Jerusalem, and connects them with West Jerusalem. Every illegal Israeli settlement, built on land stolen from the Palestinian people, is considered a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The British government has repeatedly affirmed this position, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office writing in November 2019 “[T]he position of the UK on settlements is clear. They are illegal under international law.”

When initially asked by over 2,000 supporters of human rights to exclude CAF from the bid to provide rolling stock for HS2 last year, the Minister responsible for the project, Andrew Stephenson MP, responded that it would “be inappropriate for the Department to intervene.”

However, this new report demonstrates that “HS2 Ltd. is legally entitled to and should take all necessary steps to exclude CAF from the tender procedure on the ground of ‘grave professional misconduct’, due to its clearly apparent involvement in business activities that directly maintain and facilitate violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel since 1967, in particular in occupied East Jerusalem.”

According to the report, the exclusion of CAF, and any company involved in ongoing breaches of international law, would be consistent with international legal obligations requiring all public authorities – including contracting authorities as HS2 Ltd. – to respect, protect and fulfill human rights and humanitarian standards, including by avoiding economic relations with companies that directly maintain and facilitate human rights and humanitarian violations.

More broadly, the report demonstrates that all public contracting authorities should apply the ground of exclusion for “grave professional misconduct” contained in Article 57(8)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulation 2015, where companies are involved in ongoing breaches of international law. In the case of HS2, these findings can be applied to any company involved in the bidding process that is complicit in Israel’s settlement of Palestinian land.

Ben Jamal, Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign said:

All public contract authorities must discharge their responsibilities to cease complicity in ongoing violations of international law. This means HS2 Ltd must exclude CAF, and any other company violating Palestinian human rights, from the bid to provide rolling stock.

Giovanni Fassina, Programme Director of the European Legal Support Center said:

Companies that are involved in war crimes should have no standing in public tenders. CAF chooses to put profit before humanity in facilitating the ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights. HS2 Ltd. has the legal right and a moral obligation to exclude CAF from the tender procedure.

Morning Star, Bethany Rielly, Pressure mounts on HS2 to drop train firm ‘involved in Israeli war crimes’ from bidders list, 4 February 2021

Middle East Monitor, Refuse bids from those ‘involved in Israeli war crimes’, legal groups tell UK rail construction company, 5 February 2021

Electronic Intifada, Adri Nieuwhof, UK must bar settlement profiteer from work on high-speed rail line, 9 February 2021 [Translated into Spanish & Italian]

Categories
Release

31 Human Rights Organisations, Networks & Trade Unions Demand CAF be included in UN Settlement Database

Read the release in SpanishBasqueFrench

The ELSC, together with 30 prominent human rights organisations, networks and trade unions from Palestine and Europe, have submitted a report to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, demanding that Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) be included in the UN database of businesses involved in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise. The claim is based on the Basque company’s role in expanding and operating Israel’s Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), which entrenches Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Jerusalem.

The UN database of companies involved in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise was published in February 2020, listing 112 Israeli and multinational companies, including CAF’s Israeli partner in the JLR, Shapir. The OHCHR is mandated to annually update the database. In 2016 and 2017, the UN Human Rights Council deemed the JLR illegal, saying it is “in clear violation of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.”

The joint report submitted to the OHCHR explains that, “by connecting and facilitating mobility between the settlements, West Jerusalem, and Israel, the JLR substantially contributes to the maintenance and expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and to the entrenchment of Israel’s illegal annexation of the city, ultimately consolidating Israel’s annexation of occupied Palestinian territory contrary to international law.” 

Maha Abdallah from the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies said: “In carrying out the project in occupied and annexed East Jerusalem, CAF is involved in gross and systematic violations of fundamental human rights against Palestinians.” Abdallah added “The construction of the existing ‘Red Line’ has already resulted in significant expropriation of Palestinian property, while the new ‘Green Line’ will serve the settlement of Gilo among other illegal settlements, whose existence and growth deprives Palestinians access to and use of their land and resources.” 

To this end, the OHCHR must fulfil its mandate in its entirety by annually updating the UN database to include companies involved in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise – as originally mandated by the Human Rights Council in resolution 31/36 of 2016. Wesam Ahmad, Al-Haq’s Business and Human Rights Coordinator, said “The database is an important tool for exposing the economic incentive structure that has allowed a military occupation to mutate into a situation of contemporary colonialism and the role of businesses such as CAF, must be addressed in the annual update.

Giovanni Fassina, ELSC’s Programme Director said: The continued operation of CAF in the oPt is illegal under international law. By putting business interests above the rights of Palestinian’s living under a prolonged and illegal occupation, CAF has chosen to put profit before humanity. We hope that by including them on the UN database, CAF will hear the call of civil society and withdraw from the JLR project.

In February 2020, 70 Basque groups launched a campaign calling on CAF to withdraw from the JLR. Two weeks ago, people all over Basque Country – in Iruña, Bilbao, Gasteiz, and Oñati – protested to demand that CAF stop building the JLR. Kepa Torrijos from Sodepaz, one of the signing organisations from the Basque country said “Groups in the Basque country are working tirelessly to end Basque complicity with Israeli apartheid. We are closely working with trade unions inside of CAF who from the very beginning also called for the company not to participate in the bidding. The key workers council at CAF’s headquarters in Beasain has called for CAF to withdraw from the project. We are also connected with groups all over Europe who are trying to get CAF excluded from public tenders until CAF ends its involvement in Israeli apartheid.”

In addition, Spanish human rights organisations, trade unions in Norway, and civil society groups in the UK are calling on CAF to be excluded from public contracts in their countries due to its construction of the JLR.

On Tuesday, 15 December 2020, Israeli activists blocked construction of the Jerusalem Light Rail in Gilo settlement. They held a banner saying “CAF Get Off Israel’s Apartheid Train” and called for CAF to withdraw from the JLR Project.

Full list of signatories: 

1.     11.11.11
2.     Al-Haq
3.     Amnesty international Spain 
4.     Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) 
5.     Belfast Trades Union Council 
6.     Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
7.     CNCD-11.11.11
8.     Comité Solidaridad con la Causa Árabe
9.     Craigavon Trades Council 
10. European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP)
11. European Legal Support Centre (ELSC)
12. European Trade Union Network for Justice in Palestine
13. Fagforbundet – Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees
14. ICAHD Finland 
15. Mundubat
16. Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) 
17. Norwegian People’s Aid
18. Norwegian Union of Railway Workers 
19. NOVACT – International Institute for Nonviolent Action. 
20. Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) 
21. Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC) and its members: 

  • Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Mankind.
  • Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
  • Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association
  • Palestinian Center for Human Rights
  • DCI – Defense for Children International – Palestine
  • Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center
  • Aldameer Association for Human Rights
  • Ramallah Center for Defense of Liberties and Civil Rights
  • The Independent Commission for Human Rights (Ombudsman Office) – Observer Member
  • Muwatin Institute for Democracy and Human Rights – Observer Member

22. Paz con Dignidad 
23. Plateforme des ONG françaises pour la Palestine 
24. Sodepaz
25. SUDS
26. The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) 
27. The Rights Forum
28. Transnational Institute (TNI)
29. Union Syndicale Solidaires
30. War on Want
31. Women in Black (Vienna)