Category: Urgent call

Categories
Urgent call

Appeal to the Spanish government

We are a collective of lawyers in Germany who have recently filed an urgent appeal against the arms shipments from Germany to Israel before the Berlin Administrative Court.

We were informed by activists that the cargo ship “Borkum” will dock in Cartagena today – Wednesday, May 15, 2024 – loaded with arms shipments for Israel. The cargo ship’s destination is the port of Ashdod in Israel – a city only 25 km away from Gaza, where the world community has been observing genocide and the most serious war crimes against the Palestinian people for 7 months. It is up to all of us, and now especially the Spanish government, to actively do something about this!

Today, the port of Cartagena awaits the arrival of the cargo ship Borkum. According to the identification codes of the individual containers, which are indicated in the documents received from the Campaign to Stop the Arms Trade with Israel, this ship contains: 20 tons of rocket engines (UN code class 1.3C 186), 12.5 tons of rockets with explosive charges (code 181), 1,500 kg of explosive materials (477) and 740 kg of cargoes, propellant charges for cannons (242).

As lawyers, we would like to point out that we are not only subject to our conscience, but also to the law. The Arms Trade Treaty is clearly your responsibility as a signatory:

The Arms Trade Treaty clearly states in its Article 6 that:

“A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms covered by Article 2(1) or of items covered by Article 3 or Article 4 if, at the time of authorization, it has knowledge that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, attacks against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined in international agreements to which it is a party.”

The same treaty (Article 2) states that the transfer of arms includes the export, import, transit, transshipment and brokering of arms. Authorizing a ship loaded with arms destined for Israel means allowing the transit of arms to a country currently under investigation for genocide against the Palestinian people and responsible for serious human rights violations. To date, it is estimated that over 35,000 people, including more than 15,000 children, have been killed. The port of Ashdod is barely 30 km from Gaza, and the company involved in the transfer, according to the documents, is IMI Systems, part of Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company, which has a very close and highly strategic relationship with the Israeli Defense Forces. The documents state that “under no circumstances” should the name IMI Systems and Israel appear on the Internet.

We know that the Spanish government is committed to defending the rights of the Palestinian people. On such a symbolic day as today, when we commemorate 76 years of the Nakba, we ask you to check the contents of the freighter Borkum and prevent the military cargo it is carrying from reaching Israel to be used against the Palestinian people in Gaza, and to deny the ship further passage.

Llamamiento al gobierno español

Somos un colectivo de abogados en Alemania. Hace unas semanas, hemos presentado un recurso urgente contra el envío de armas de Alemania a Israel ante el Tribunal Administrativo de Berlín.

Unos activistas nos han informado de que el carguero «Borkum» atracará en Cartagena hoy, miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2024, transportando un cargamento de armas para Israel. El buque de carga va con destino al puerto de Ashdod en Israel, una ciudad a tan solo 25 kilómetros de Gaza, donde la comunidad internacional lleva siendo testigo del genocidio y de algunos de los crímenes de guerra más graves contra los palestinos durante los últimos 7 meses. Depende de todos nosotros, y ahora especialmente del gobierno español, ¡hacer algo al respecto!

Hoy, el puerto de Cartagena espera la llegada del carguero Borkum. Según los códigos de identificación de los contenedores individuales, que se indican en los documentos recibidos de la Campaña para Detener el Comercio de Armas con Israel, este buque contiene: 20 toneladas de motores de cohetes (código ONU clase 1.3C 186), 12,5 toneladas de cohetes de carga explosiva (código 181), 1.500 kg de materiales explosivos (477) y 740 kg de cargamentos, cargas propulsoras para cañones (242).

Como abogados, nos gustaría señalar que no sólo estamos sujetos a nuestra conciencia, sino también a la ley. El Tratado sobre el Comercio de Armas es sin duda su responsabilidad como firmante:

El Tratado sobre el Comercio de Armas establece claramente en el artículo 6 que:

«Un Estado Parte no autorizará una transferencia de armas convencionales comprendidas en el apartado 1 del artículo 2 o de artículos comprendidos en los artículos 3 o 4 si, en el momento de la autorización, tiene conocimiento de que las armas o los artículos se utilizarían para cometer genocidio, crímenes de lesa humanidad, violaciones graves de los Convenios de Ginebra de 1949, ataques contra objetivos civiles o contra civiles protegidos como tales, u otros crímenes de guerra definidos en acuerdos internacionales de los que sea parte.»

El mismo tratado (artículo 2) establece que la transferencia de armas incluye la exportación, la importación, el tránsito, el transbordo y el corretaje de armas. Autorizar un barco cargado de armas con destino a Israel significa permitir el tránsito de armas hacia un país actualmente investigado por genocidio contra el pueblo palestino y responsable de graves violaciones de los derechos humanos. A día de hoy, se calcula que han muerto más de 35.000 personas, entre ellas más de 15.000 niños. El puerto de Ashdod está a apenas 30 kilómetros de Gaza y la empresa implicada en la transferencia, según los documentos, es IMI Systems, parte de Elbit Systems, la mayor empresa armamentística de Israel, que mantiene una relación muy estrecha y altamente estratégica con las Fuerzas de Defensa israelíes. Los documentos establecen que «bajo ninguna circunstancia» el nombre de IMI Systems e Israel debe aparecer en Internet.

Sabemos que el gobierno español está comprometido con la defensa de los derechos del pueblo palestino. En un día tan simbólico como hoy, en el que conmemoramos los 76 años de la Nakba, le pedimos al gobierno que compruebe el contenido del carguero Borkum, que impida que la carga militar que transporta llegue a Israel para ser utilizada contra el pueblo palestino en la Franja de Gaza y que niegue el paso al buque.

Appell an die Spanische Regierung

Wir sind ein Kollektiv an Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälten in Deutschland, die kürzlich einen Eilantrag gegen die Waffenlieferungen von Deutschland nach Israel vor dem Berliner Verwaltungsgericht angestrengt haben.

Wir wurden von Aktivist*innen informiert, dass das Frachtschiff „Borkum“ heute – Mittwoch, 15.5.2024- in Cartagena angelegt wird, beladen mit Waffenlieferungen für Israel. Ziel des Frachtschiffes ist der Hafen in Ashdod in Israel – eine Stadt nur 25 km entfernt von Gaza, wo die Weltgemeinschaft seit 7 Monaten einen Genozid und schwerste Kriegsverbrechen gegen die Palästinenser*innen beobachten muss. Es ist an uns alle, und nun ganz besonders an der Spanischen Regierung, hiergegen aktiv etwas zu unternehmen!

Heute erwartet der Hafen von Cartagena die Ankunft des Frachtschiffes Borkum. Nach den Identifizierungscodes der einzelnen Container, die in den von der Kampagne zur Beendigung des Waffenhandels mit Israel erhaltenen Unterlagen angegeben sind, enthält dieses Schiff: 20 Tonnen Raketentriebwerke (UN-Codeklasse 1.3C 186), 12,5 Tonnen Raketen mit Sprengladungen (Code 181), 1.500 kg explosive Stoffe (477) und 740 kg Ladungen, Treibladungen für Kanonen (242).

Als Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälte weisen wir Sie darauf hin, dass wir nicht nur unserem Gewissen unterworfen sind, sondern auch dem Gesetz. Das Arms Trade Treaty ist klar in der Verantwortung, die Sie als Vertragsunterzeichnerin trifft:

Der Vertrag über den Waffenhandel legt in seinem Artikel 6 klar fest, dass:

„Ein Vertragsstaat darf einen Transfer von konventionellen Waffen, die unter Artikel 2 Absatz 1 fallen, oder von Gegenständen, die unter Artikel 3 oder Artikel 4 fallen, nicht genehmigen, wenn er zum Zeitpunkt der Genehmigung Kenntnis davon hat, dass die Waffen oder Gegenstände zur Begehung von Völkermord, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, schweren Verstößen gegen die Genfer Abkommen von 1949, Angriffen auf zivile Objekte oder Zivilpersonen, die als solche geschützt sind, oder anderen Kriegsverbrechen im Sinne internationaler Übereinkünfte, bei denen er Vertragspartei ist, verwendet werden würden.“

In demselben Vertrag (Artikel 2) heißt es, dass die Weitergabe von Waffen die Ausfuhr, die Einfuhr, die Durchfuhr, die Umladung und die Vermittlung von Waffen umfasst. Die Genehmigung für ein mit Waffen beladenes Schiff, das für Israel bestimmt ist, bedeutet, dass die Durchfuhr von Waffen in ein Land erlaubt wird, gegen das derzeit wegen Völkermordes am palästinensischen Volk ermittelt wird und das für schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen verantwortlich ist. Bis heute wurden schätzungsweise über 35.000 Menschen, darunter mehr als 15.000 Kinder, getötet. Der Hafen von Aschdod ist kaum 30 km vom Gazastreifen entfernt, und das an dem Transfer beteiligte Unternehmen ist den Unterlagen zufolge IMI Systems, das zu Elbit Systems gehört, Israels größtem Waffenkonzern, der eine sehr enge und äußerst strategische Beziehung zu den israelischen Streitkräften unterhält. In den Unterlagen heißt es, dass „unter keinen Umständen“ der Name IMI Systems und Israel im Internet auftauchen dürfe.

Wir wissen, dass sich die spanische Regierung für die Verteidigung der Rechte des palästinensischen Volkes einsetzt. An einem so symbolträchtigen Tag wie heute, an dem wir der 76 Jahre andauernden Nakba gedenken, bitten wir Sie, den Inhalt des Frachters Borkum zu überprüfen und zu verhindern, dass die militärische Fracht, die er transportiert, Israel erreicht, um gegen das palästinensische Volk im Gazastreifen eingesetzt zu werden, und dem Schiff die Weiterfahrt zu verweigern.

Categories
Urgent call

UK Government Must Stop Crackdown on Freedom of Expression, Warn 46 NGOs including ELSC

ELSC is among 46 NGOs calling on the Prime Minister to stop the recent crackdown on fundamental rights to freedom of expression. The open letter has also been covered in the Guardian. 

8 March 2024

To the Prime Minister, 

RE: Government proposals to crack down on the right to protest and free expression 

We, the undersigned, write with great concern about recent proposals that will further restrict the rights of everyone in the UK. It is the responsibility of any government to ensure that all people can fully exercise their rights, and that fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly are only interfered with when strictly necessary and in a lawful, proportionate way. 

That is why we are greatly concerned by the ‘Defending Democracy Policing Protocol’, published a few days ago, which would further add to a chaotic patchwork of repressive legislation and policing powers that has placed undue restrictions on the right to protest in this country. The protocol outlines new restrictive proposals, some of which relate to protest locations. Many locations listed, such as the Palace of Westminster, outside constituency offices, town halls or the venue of a political event are perfectly normal locations for protest. Existing legislation already governs if violent or other criminal activity occurs, but the words used by senior politicians suggest these locations are in and of themselves no longer to be treated as acceptable locations of protest. The Protocol misrepresents the law and risks having a chilling effect on individuals’ ability to exercise their right to protest in this country. 

In addition, we have wider concerns about the manner in which your government has come to discuss protesters and others that engage in legitimate political activity on important issues of the day. Our organisations have emphasised the necessity of using considered language in recent months. Yet the deployment of certain terms, such as ’extremism’, ‘radical’, ‘hate mobs’, by your government creates division and exacerbates existing fears amongst minoritised communities. For some, such as neurodiverse people and Muslims, they will be greatly worried by announcements to redouble support for the Prevent duty, which infringes on freedom of expression, association, assembly and the right to non-discrimination. 

As an open society, we should value engagement with all, including our critics and those who see the world differently from us. That is why proposals from Ministers on the definition of extremism or Government Advisors on banning engagement with certain groups is deeply worrying. There have already been concerns that the current definition of extremism is too broad, including from the former Head of Counter-Terrorism Policing.  

There is a different path to the above, one where your government facilitates the right of everyone to have their voices heard. It is our collective responsibility to set a reasoned tone for any discussion; the language that has been used in recent weeks and months has not met this important bar.  Instead, the government has sought to demonise an overwhelmingly peaceful movement of individuals calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and Israel, who are concerned and outraged by the catastrophic loss of life that we are all witnessing. 

We strongly urge the government to: 

  • Reverse the recent crack-down on the right to protest and stop conflating protests with extremism; 
  • Abandon the expansion of the definition of extremism and proposals to bar MPs from engaging with certain groups; 
  • Refrain from amplifying divisive language which could inflame tensions within and between communities. 

Signed 

  1. Sacha Deshmukh, Chief Executive Officer, Amnesty International UK 
  2. Chris Rose, Director, Amos Trust  
  3. Article 19 
  4. Dr Sara Husseini, Director, British Palestinian Committee  
  5. CAGE  
  6. Leo Ratledge and Lianne Minasian, Co-Directors, Childrens Rights International Network  
  7. Christian Aid 
  8. Nick Gardham, Chief Executive Officer, Community Organisers  
  9. Jennifer Nadel, Co-Director, Compassion in Politics  
  10. Chris Doyle, Director, Council for Arab-British Understanding  
  11. Tim Livesey, Chief Executive, Embrace the Middle East 
  12. Daniel Gorman, Director, English PEN  
  13. Giovanni Fassina, Programme Director, European Legal Support Centre  
  14. Hugh Knowles and Miriam Turner, Co-Executive Directors, Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)  
  15. Sarah Mann, Chief Executive Officer, Friends Families and Travellers  
  16. Eva Tabassam, Director, Gender Action for Peace and Security  
  17. Nick Dearden, Director, Global Justice Now 
  18. Will McCallum and Areeba Hamid, Co-Executive Directors, Greenpeace UK  
  19. James Harrison, Director, Institute of Employment Rights  
  20. Liz Fekete, Director, Institute of Race Relations  
  21. Sarah Castell, Chief Executive Officer, Involve 
  22. Tareq Shrourou, Executive Director, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights  
  23. Akiko Hart, Director, Liberty 
  24. Aimee Shalan, Director, Makan  
  25. Raheel Mohammed, Director, Maslaha  
  26. James Skinner, Co-Director, MedAct  
  27. Raghad Altikritti, Chairperson, Muslim Association of Britain 
  28. Zara Mohammed, Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain  
  29. Azhar Qayum, Chief Executive Officer, Muslim Engagement and Development  
  30. Naomi Magnus and Ros Edwards, Directors, Na’amod  
  31. Kevin Blowe, Campaigns Coordinator, Netpol  
  32. Northern Police Monitoring Project 
  33. Mark Kieran, Chief Executive Officer, Open Britain  
  34. Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group  
  35. Oxfam GB  
  36. Ben Jamal, Director, Palestine Solidarity Campaign 
  37. Layla Aitlhadj, Director, Prevent Watch  
  38. Paul Parker, Recording Clerk, Quakers in Britain  
  39. Michael Buraimoh, Chief Executive Officer, Race on the Agenda  
  40. Shabna Begum, Interim Chief Executive Officer, Runnymede Trust  
  41. The Democracy Network  
  42. John Cooper, Director, The Fellowship of Reconciliation  
  43. Clare Farrell, The Humanity Project  
  44. Katrina Ffrench, Founder and Managing Director, UNJUST  
  45. Tessa Khan, Founder and Executive Director, Uplift  
  46. Asad Rehman, Executive Director, War on Want 
Categories
Urgent call

Human Rights and other Civil Society Groups Urge United Nations to Respect Human Rights in the Fight Against Antisemitism

The United Nations should respect human rights in its efforts to combat antisemitism, more than 100 human rights and civil rights organisations, including the ELSC, said in an open letter to Secretary-General António Guterres and the High Representative for the UN Alliance of Civilizations Miguel Ángel Moratinos initiated by Human Rights Watch.

Note: Since its release on April 3, this letter has been updated to reflect additional signatories now totaling 104 organizations. The updated list of organizations is appended.

Joint Letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Under Secretary-General Miguel Ángel Moratinos

20 April 2023

Dear UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Under Secretary-General Miguel Ángel Moratinos:

Our coalition of 104 civil society organizations is writing to you to voice our strong support for the United Nations’ commitment to combatting antisemitism in line with international human rights standards. Antisemitism is a pernicious ideology that poses real harm to Jewish communities around the world and requires meaningful action to combat it. Our organizations call on world leaders to condemn antisemitism and to take steps to protect Jewish communities, including holding perpetrators of hate crimes accountable.

As the UN develops its own action plan towards a coordinated and enhanced response to antisemitism rooted in human rights, we are aware that a number of Member State governments and organizations aligned with some of those governments, as well as the former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Ahmed Shaheed, have been advocating that the UN adopt and use the “working definition of antisemitism” of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). We urge the UN not to do so.

The IHRA definition was originally developed to guide research and law enforcement data validation before being used by the IHRA in its work, which includes education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism. In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe. Such misuse has also been criticized by the former Special Rapporteur on Racism E. Tendayi Achiume.

Ken Stern, the main drafter of the IHRA definition, recently reiterated his concerns about the institutional adoption of the definition in light of its proposed inclusion in an American Bar Association (ABA) draft resolution on antisemitism. Stern’s concern stems from the IHRA definition’s repeated use as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite.” In the end, ABA members adopted a resolution on antisemitism that did not reference the IHRA definition. Stern’s message to ABA applies equally to the UN.

Those who use the IHRA definition in this way tend to rely on a set of eleven “contemporary examples of antisemitism” attached to the definition by the IHRA in 2016. Seven of those examples refer to the state of Israel. These examples, which are presented as possible illustrations and indicators to “guide the IHRA in its work”, include:

  • “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and
  • “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

The wording of the first example above on “racist endeavour” opens the door to labeling as antisemitic criticisms that Israeli government policies and practices violate the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the findings of major Israeli, Palestinian and global human rights organizations that Israeli authorities are committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians. This example could also be used to label as antisemitic documentation showing that Israel’s founding involved dispossessing many Palestinians; or arguments, also made by some Members of the Israeli Knesset, to transform Israel from a Jewish state into a multiethnic state that equally belongs to all of its citizens – that is, a state based on civic identity, rather than ethnic identity.

The example on “applying double standards” opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere. By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia. This example suggests also that it is antisemitic to evaluate Israel as anything but a democracy, also when assessing its actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, where it has for more than half a century governed millions of Palestinians who have no say on the most consequential issues affecting their lives and who are deprived of their basic civil rights.

The IHRA qualifies the examples by noting that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” and that any finding of antisemitism must “[take] into account the overall context.” However, in practice, these disclaimers have failed to prevent the politically motivated instrumentalization of the IHRA definition in efforts to muzzle legitimate speech and activism by critics of Israel’s human rights record and advocates for Palestinian rights.

The targets of accusations of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition have included university students and professors, grassroots organizers, human rights and civil rights organizations, humanitarian groups and members of the US Congress, who either document or criticize Israeli policies and who speak in favor of Palestinian human rights. If the UN endorses the IHRA definition in any shape or form, UN officials working on issues related to Israel and Palestine may find themselves unjustly accused of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition. The same goes for numerous UN agencies, departments, committees, panels and/or conferences, whose work touches on issues related to Israel and Palestine, as well as for civil society actors and human rights defenders engaging with the UN system.

After the United Kingdom’s government adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism at the national level, at least two UK universities in 2017 banned certain activities planned for “Israel Apartheid Week.” One of them, the University of Central Lancashire, banned a panel planned by Friends of Palestine on boycotts of Israel. A university spokesperson stated, “We believe the proposed talk contravenes the [IHRA] definition” of antisemitism “formally adopted” by the government.

In February 2020, Israel advocacy groups in the US challenged Pitzer and Pomona College’s support for a film screening about Palestinian protests in Gaza against Israeli repression and a panel on “Perspectives on Colleges and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” featuring the prominent Jewish commentator Peter Beinart and Palestinian-American Yousef Munayyer, hosted by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The Israel advocacy groups claimed that SJP’s positions, such as its support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, are “clear indicators of anti-Semitism under the examples listed by the IHRA.” In January 2020, Israel advocacy groups called for the University of Michigan to review the agenda for a “Youth for Palestine” conference focused on student activism and community organizing on Palestine, and to “compare it to the IHRA definition,” and consider canceling it over concerns that it will feed antisemitism.

Some advocates of the IHRA working definition have presented it as a non-controversial “consensus definition”. However, many leading antisemitism experts, scholars of Jewish studies and the Holocaust, as well as free speech and anti-racism experts, have challenged the definition, arguing that it restricts legitimate criticism of Israel and harms the fight against antisemitism.

Since 2021, at least two alternative definitions have been put forward: the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism by hundreds of scholars of antisemitism, Holocaust studies, Jewish studies and Middle East studies, as well as the Nexus Document by a task force affiliated with Bard College and the University of Southern California. While acknowledging that criticism of Israel can be antisemitic, these alternative definitions set out more clearly what constitutes antisemitism and provide guidance surrounding the contours of legitimate speech and action around Israel and Palestine.

As an international organization committed to the universal promotion of the rule of law and human rights, the UN should ensure that its vital efforts to combat antisemitism do not inadvertently embolden or endorse policies and laws that undermine fundamental human rights, including the right to speak and organize in support of Palestinian rights and to criticize Israeli government policies.

For these reasons, we strongly urge the UN not to endorse the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

We look forward to assisting the UN’s efforts to combat antisemitism in a way that respects, protects and promotes human rights.

Sincerely,

Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel*

Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association

Al Mezan Center for Human Rights

Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Mankind

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Amnesty International*

B’Tselem

Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement

Human Rights Watch

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH)

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

Joined by:

11.11.11

7amleh – The Arab Center for Social Media Advancement

A Different Jewish Voice (Netherlands)*

Academia for Equality*

Africa4Palestine (AFP)

American Friends Service Committee

American Humanist Association*

American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)*

Americans for Peace Now*

Arab Canadian Lawyers Association*

Association “Pour Jérusalem”

Association des Universitaires pour le Respect du Droit International en Palestine (AUDRIP)

Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS)

BDS Netherlands

Belgian Academics & Artists for Palestine (BAA4P)

Bisan Center for Research and Development*

Breaking the Silence*

British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES)*

Broederlijk Delen

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)*

Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)*

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

Catholics for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land (CJPHL)*

CCFD-Terre Solidaire

Charity & Security Network*

CIDSE

CNCD-11.11.11

Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine (CJACP)

Combatants for Peace

Comhlamh Justice for Palestine

Defending Rights & Dissent*

Defense for Children International – Palestine

Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)

EuroMed Rights*

European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP)*

European Jews for a Just Peace

European Legal Support Center (ELSC)

European Middle East Project (EuMEP)

Finnish-Arab Friendship Society

Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP)*

Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA)*

gate48 – critical Israelis in the Netherlands*

Global Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ

Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church

Human Rights Defenders Fund (HRDF)*

IfNotNow*

Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV)*

Independent Jewish Voices Canada

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)*

Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC)*

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (Finland)

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (UK)

Jahalin Solidarity*

Jewish Network for Palestine (UK)

Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East (Germany)

Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL)*

Jewish Voice for Peace – Twin Cities*

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)*

Jews against the Occupation Australia*

Jews for Palestine-Ireland

Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Juste*

Kairos Ireland

La Cimade (France)

Law for Palestine*

Le Comité de Vigilance pour une Paix Réelle au Proche-Orient (CVPR PO)

Medico international

Mennonite Church Canada Palestine-Israel Network*

Middle East Peace Now*

Minnesota BDS Community*

Mouvement de la paix France

Nederlands Palestina Komitee

One Justice

Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK*

Palestinian NGOs Network (PNGO)

Parents Against Child Detention (PACD)

Pax Christi USA

Plateforme des ONG françaises pour la Palestine

Presbyterian Church (USA)

Project South*

Promise Institute for Human Rights*

Sadaka – The Ireland-Palestine Alliance*

The Rights Forum

Trinity College Dublin BDS*

Tzedek Collective*

Une Autre Voix Juive (France)

Union Juive Française pour la Paix (UJFP)

United Jewish People’s Order of Canada

United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine and Israel (UNJPPI)*

University Network for Human Rights

Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)*

Women in Black (Vienna)

* Post-launch signers that joined this letter after its initial release on 3 April 2023

Picture: CC UN Photo/Rick Bajornas Flickr

Categories
Urgent call

Avoid Assisting in the Forcible Deportation & Transfer of  Human Rights Defender Salah Hamouri

Urgent Appeal to Commercial Airlines

Summary

Israel has recently announced it will imminently deport Palestinian human rights defender Salah Hamouri, an act that could be a serious violation of international law. We, the undersigned human rights organizations, call on commercial airlines to do everything in their capacity to refuse to assist in what could constitute a war crime by refusing to transport individuals undergoing unlawful forcible deportation and making a public statement to this effect.

The below document provides background to the case of Salah Hamouri, references the relevant legal obligations of commercial airlines, and sets out the practical steps commercial airlines need to take to ensure they are not contributing to serious violations of international law.

Background

On 30 November 2022, the Israeli authorities informed imprisoned Palestinian-French human rights lawyer, Salah Hamouri, 37, that he will be forcibly deported to France from occupied East Jerusalem – his hometown – for “breach of allegiance” to Israel. Hamouri has been held in administrative detention since March 2022 without charge or trial on the basis of ‘secret evidence,’ and the decision to deport him follows Israel’s revocation of Hammouri’s permanent residency status in Jerusalem.1 Hamouri has said that he refuses deportation and will not willingly board a flight.

Hammouri’s deportation, which can take place any time from December 4, 2022, onwards, will be a clear escalation in Israel’s prolonged harassment and targeting of him through arbitrary arrests, travel bans, surveillance, and family separation. 

Unlawful deportations and residency revocations in occupied territory violate numerous provisions of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Hammouri’s deportation out of the occupied territory could constitute a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and potentially a war crime as per the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

In accordance with the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, the protected population in an occupied territory, such as is the case in the internationally-recognized occupied East Jerusalem, does not have a duty of allegiance to the Occupying Power (Israel), the basis upon which Hamouri is to be deported. 2

According to a UN Experts’ statement on 2 December 2022

“Such unilateral, arbitrary measures taken by Israeli authorities in retaliation against Mr. Hammouri as a human rights defender, violate every principle and the very spirit of international law 

[…]

These measures set an extremely dangerous precedent for all Palestinians in Jerusalem. The international community must not remain silent and quietly watch this umpteenth violation”.3 Private commercial actors have a responsibility to respect human rights and international humanitarian law in their own activities. Where they fail to abide by those responsibilities in their activities and relationships, they risk contributing to grave violations and internationally recognized crimes.4UN Experts’ statement

In light of the above, we strongly urge commercial airlines to refuse and refrain from assisting the Israeli authorities in carrying out its inhumane, discriminatory, and likely unlawful forced deportation of Salah Hammouri.5 Moreover, we ask that commercial airlines running direct flights to France make a statement on their website stating their refusal to participate in any unlawful forcible deportations by Israel of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

At a time when Hammouri’s family and loved ones, Palestinian and international civil society, the United Nations, and states are calling on Israel to halt his forcible deportation and transfer and for Hammouri to be able to remain in his hometown, commercial airlines should review and act in accordance with the relevant set duties, namely those under international human rights and humanitarian law. 

Organizational signatories

  • Adalah Justice Project
  • Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association
  • Al-Haq, Law in Service of Man
  • Alice Rothchild, MD
  • Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights
  • Bisan Center for Research and Development
  • Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  • Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
  • Community Action Center, Al-Quds University
  • Democracy for the Arab World (DAWN)
  • Equipo Juridico Pueblos
  • European Legal Support Center (ELSC)
  • Freedom Archives
  • Human Rights Watch
  • International Association of Democratic Lawyers
  • International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
  • Just Peace Advocates
  • Justice for Palestinians
  • Law for Palestine
  • Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
  • National Lawyers Guild, International Committee
  • National Lawyers Guild, Palestine Committee
  • Oakville Palestinian Rights Association (Canada)
  • Observatorio de Derechos Humanos de los Pueblos
  • Paz con Dignidad 
  • Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
  • The Canadian BDS Coalition 
  • The Center for Constitutional Rights
  • The Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy PIPD
  • The Palestinian Committee in Norway

 1 For more information concerning Hamouri’s case, see: https://justiceforsalah.net/12/2022/press-release-en/intervention-needed-salah-identity-revoked-and-to-be-deported/ and https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/16/israel-free-french-palestinian-rights-worker

2 For more analysis, see https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/israel-opt-deporting-salah-hammouri-would-constitute-a-war-crime/ 

 3 UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Israeli deportation order against French-Palestinian activist Salah Hamouri could constitute war crime: UN experts, 2 December 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/12/israeli-deportation-order-against-french-palestinian-activist-salah-hammouri 

4 DCAF, ICRC and the Geneva Centre for Business and Human Rights, Fact Sheet: How does armed conflict impact responsible security management?, https://securityhumanrightshub.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Standalone%20-%20Factsheet%20%20Armed%20Conflicts_FINAL.pdf 

5 Over the years, commercial airlines around the world have been increasingly demonstrating commitment by refusing to accept forced deportations of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants. See https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/uk-virgin-atlantic-to-stop-accepting-forced-deportations-amid-concern-over-removal-of-windrush-generation-migrants-lgbt-asylum-seekers/