The Israeli occupation forces’ brutal assault on the Gaza Strip since 8 October, carried out after accusing Palestinian resistance fighters of attacking Israeli towns and settlements in the Gaza envelope, has exposed a scandalous double standard in the application of human rights norms by Western governments and renowned human rights organizations.
Although these governments and organizations are quick to take extremely strict stances on human rights and to launch defamatory propaganda campaigns against many Arab countries over claims of human rights abuses, their stated positions on recent Israeli practices, which include blatant war crimes and more severe violations of human rights, were spineless and even supported or justified Israeli crimes.
This paper tracks the most significant Western responses made by governments and non-governmental human rights organisations over the course of 9-12 October. The paper also analyses these positions from the standpoint of human rights standards and international humanitarian law, highlighting what can be considered as participation by these nations and organizations in encouraging Israel to commit more crimes and violations of human rights, as well as complicity in imposing collective punishment on the nearly 16-year-long besieged population of the Gaza Strip. We, further, consider how recent Western positions may impact the West’s advocacy for the implementation of human rights obligations in neighbouring Arab countries.
Western Reactions: Support for Israel at the Expense of Human Rights
Western countries’ political positions and responses to Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip and the earlier Palestinian militant attack on Israeli settlements have significantly escalated over the past few days. The majority of the political responses went against human rights norms, supported Israeli aggression, and encouraged the commission of additional violations. The following list outlines the errors made by Western media in their reporting on the conflict in Gaza:
I- Dismissing Facts and Leaping to Conclusions that Justify Israel’s Violations
Many of the Western governments’ official statements and the responses of major human rights organisations like Human Rights Watch were riddled with inaccuracies, jumped the gun on facts, and failed to take into account the fundamental causes of the crisis in Gaza and their effects on the Palestinian people. The following are some of the main characteristics of such a departure from truth and fact-jumping:
- Ignoring the causes of the current crisis and its historical roots, represented by Israel’s ongoing illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and ongoing denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
- Disregarding the historical suffering endured by the besieged Palestinians of Gaza, who have been trapped in the world’s largest open prison for nearly 16 years. Israel effectively besieges the Gaza Strip by using all available means, restricting the movement of its citizens and imposing daily hardship on the entry of goods, which causes the people of Gaza to live in a constant state of crisis with regard to the provision of services, access to employment opportunities, and securing their basic needs.
- Inaction in the face of Israel’s continued aggression, illegal settlement construction, and extreme apartheid tactics against the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza.
- Ignoring the ongoing Israeli attacks on Arab holy sites in East Jerusalem, which include the frequent incursions of armed Israeli forces and representatives of the political and governmental sphere into the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque.
- Media reports, which are supposed to uphold international law, have not begun with the fact that Israel has disregarded a number of resolutions passed by the UN and Security Council between 1948 and the present. The most significant of these resolutions are Resolution 194 of 1948 stipulating the right of refugees to return; Resolution 248 of 1968 mandating Israel’s withdrawal from territories it forcibly occupied in 1967; Resolution 271 of 1969 denouncing the Israeli actions and asking it conceal the proposals that might change the situation of Jerusalem; and Security Council Resolution 2334 of 2016 demanding that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- Continuing to ignore the tragic situation of Palestinian hostages held in Israeli prisons, which in 2023 numbered about 5,200 people (including women, children, and those held under administrative detention orders without trial).
Western governments and human rights organizations are depriving this treatment of credibility by omitting these essential points from their analyses and responses to the recent Gaza War. Looking at the historical context of the issue and broadening the field of vision to monitor the overall picture of the scene are fundamental requirements for conducting a human rights assessment and determining the extent of the parties’ commitment to humanitarian values and international legitimacy in the recent war. This is in contrast to simply focusing on one specific instance where the oppressed Palestinians, whose rights are being violated by the occupation authority that has been violating and undermining Palestinian rights, is in the spotlight.
II- Collective Punishment of the People of Gaza by European Governments
Even if we concede that some acts of Palestinian militancy against Israeli civilians may constitute a breach of the laws of war, this does not excuse Israel’s response, which has taken the form of a full-scale war in which the vast majority of casualties have been civilians and children, let alone destruction to civilian property. Probably the most obvious proof that Western governments were involved in imposing collective punishment on the people of Gaza is as follows:
- The US haste in bringing a massive aircraft carrier to anchor off the coasts of Palestine and Israel is a sign of support for Israel’s ongoing aggression against the entire Gaza Strip.
- Complete inaction on the part of the European and American governments in response to Israel’s bombing and devastation of infrastructure, cutting off all supply lines for humanitarian aid, targeting hospitals and water facilities, tightening of the siege on the Gaza Strip, and refusal to allow in any food or medical aid.
- Suspension of development assistance programmes by major European nations for the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian civil society, and United Nations relief organizations working in the Gaza Strip and the occupied Palestinian territories (Sweden suspended $5 million, Germany $131 million, Austria $20 million, and Denmark suspended $13 million).
The United Kingdom has also begun to review its development programmes without suspending its payments. In order to prevent any support, even indirect support, for Hamas, the European Union has also stated that its ongoing development assistance will be subject to review. It is important to note that since Hamas does not have legal standing in the Gaza Strip, all aid initiatives bypass it. As a result, the only people who lose out on these policies are the Gaza-based Palestinians.
III. Undermining the Right of European Citizens and Residents to Free Expression and Peaceful Assembly
One of the most shocking responses from European governments during the recent war was a crackdown on constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly of citizens and legal residents.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrations were outlawed in France, and demonstrations criticizing Israeli crimes were dispersed with excessive force by the interior ministry. Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, also declared that his nation would forbid any marches in support of what he called terrorist groups. Olaf Scholz, the chancellor of Germany, took a similar stance when he announced that the pro-Palestinian Samidoun organization would be outlawed. In a letter to senior police commanders in England and Wales, the British Home Secretary also warned them against any public displays of support for the Hamas movement and urged them to use all necessary force to stop the appearance of what it described as anti-Israel symbols or slogans.
Taking extreme stances against the right to demonstrate and using force and arrest to prevent peaceful demonstrators from expressing their opinions acted outside the context of the ingrained image of European governments as tolerant when it comes to opening the public sphere and providing the right to express opinions and protest. Sweden’s position permitting some of its extremists to burn copies of the Holy Qur’an stands out is a case in point.
IV. Leading Human Rights Organizations: From Pro-Israel to Nebulous Positions
An examination of the rhetoric of significant international human rights organizations reveals a division in their stances between responses that are pro-Israel and defend its aggression and, in the best cases, indeterminate responses that equates the victim to the perpetrator.
This section tracks the responses of three prominent European and American human rights organizations—Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (AI), and the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for Support to Human Rights Defenders (EMHRF)—during the first five days of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip. Their stances can be summed up as follows:
- HRW: From 9 to 12 October, HRW released six press releases and reports about the developments in Palestine. All of HRW’s statements focused on the Palestinian side’s assault on Israeli civilians in the Gaza envelope settlements, and a sizable portion of each statement was devoted to trying to argue for what it called “human rights violations” by militants. HRW was keen to assert that Israeli military actions were a “response” to the actions of Palestinian militants. While HRW did mention serious Israeli violations in a few of its statements, including the use of white phosphorus and the deliberate targeting of civilians, the language used to describe these atrocities fell short of being sufficiently robust or prominent. Overall, HRW’s coverage over the last few days of the brutal war can be summed up as “justifying” coverage for the Israeli aggression and strong condemnations of the Palestinian side in exchange for dealing with a degree of “softness” with the criminal Israeli practices.
- AI: Although both AI and HRW followed “a somewhat justifiable pattern for Israel’s crimes”, the former’s actions were more professionally conducted. It recently released two statements, the first of which emphasized how both Israeli and Palestinian civilians were suffering as a result of the conflict, and the second of which called on Israel to end its siege of the Gaza Strip. Additionally, AI sharpened its language in response to Israel’s practices of collective punishment, as stated by its Secretary-General Agnes Callamard, who stated: “the Israeli authorities must immediately restore Gaza’s electricity supply, suspend the tighter restrictions put in place as a result of the Minister of Defense’s order of October 9, and lift its illegal 16-year blockade on the Gaza Strip. The collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population amounts to a war crime; it is cruel and inhumane.”
- EMHRF: EMHRF only released one statement, which was issued in English and was not translated into Arabic. The statement centered on urging the European side to take a comprehensive approach to resolving the Palestinian issue and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as addressing its underlying causes. However, EMHRF’s position in describing the extent and nature of the violations committed by each party was neither strong, fair, nor honest.
Will the West still be able to advocate for human rights in the Arab world after supporting Israeli violations?
To answer this question, it is important to note that the West (including its governments, parliaments, and human rights organizations) has consistently used a pejorative tone when discussing the human rights situation in many Arab countries. The West also uses the threat of aid, trade, and military cooperation to exert pressure on some countries to adopt policies that it deems to be in line with human rights standards.
These pressures by some Western bodies have crossed the line between respect for the sovereignty of states and non-interference in their internal affairs, on the one hand, and adherence to the principle of the universality of human rights, on the other.
The West has long based its positions on the reputation it has built for itself as societies and governments that uphold the value of public rights and freedoms over the course of decades. However, recent Western positions on Israel’s aggression against the Gazan population have undoubtedly distorted this picture, exposed Europe’s and America’s blind support for Israel, and exposed a grotesque and scandalous inconsistency between its rhetoric regarding Israel and its rhetoric directed at the Arab world. It could be argued that many of the pillars that once supported the West’s credibility have collapsed and will never recover.
This leads us to the conclusion that the West will not be able -at least in the near future- to play an effective and influential role in pressuring Arab countries to implement reforms in the area of public rights and freedoms, and that its positions, statements, and speeches will not have the resonance on which it relied to market these positions. Overall, the West in general and Europe in particular have lost a significant amount of their influence over this issue.
Relying on the West’s pragmatic approach to human rights issues is now more absurd than ever, so now may be a good time for the UN system, which in the recent crisis was characterized by greater credibility, to regain its role and vitality and place a bet on its mechanisms for guiding a global reform movement for human rights conditions based on respect for state sovereignty and transcending arbitrary political pressures.
