Statement in Support of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories
The Global Network on the Question of Palestine (GNQP) condemns in the strongest possible terms the 9 July 2025 sanctions imposed by the United States against Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. These sanctions are politically motivated and legally indefensible. They represent a direct threat to the integrity and independence of international human rights mechanisms. The timing of these sanctions is especially alarming. They were announced soon after Francesca Albanese published her report to the Human Rights Council, in which she analyses and documents corporate complicity throughout Israel’s genocide in Gaza. This is an apparent breach of international law, including by 60 named corporations profiting from the ongoing genocide. In keeping with her mandate, Ms. Albanese formally recommended that the ICC investigate and possibly prosecute such complicit corporate actors. The system of Special Procedures is a central component of the United Nations human rights system within which Special Rapporteurs play an indispensable role. In 1999, the International Court of Justice held that UN Special Rapporteurs are to be considered “experts on missions for the United Nations”, within the definition provided by section 22 of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities. As such, they are entitled to the Convention’s privileges and immunities, including immunity from “legal process of every kind” for statements and actions carried out in the exercise of their functions. In 2011, the Human Rights Council adopted HCR/Res/16/21 (Document Viewer), which: reaffirmed the obligation of States to “cooperate with and assist special procedures in the performance of their tasks” (para. 23); noted that the “integrity and independence of the special procedures and the principles of cooperation, transparency and accountability are integral to ensuring a robust system of the special procedures that would enhance the capacity of the Council to address human rights situations on the ground.” (para. 24) Cooperation by States is imperative for Special Rapporteurs to implement their mandates without fearing retaliatory and diversionary moves by governments whose actions they have criticised. Furthermore, States must refrain from mobilising and encouraging others to criticise and incite action against Special Rapporteurs. As a condition of membership, all 193 UN member states have agreed to respect international law, the UN Charter, and to protect UN personnel in their course of discharging their formal duties. An added responsibility exists for the over 150 states, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, that are parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Ms. Albanese has been sanctioned for upholding most effectively the responsibilities entrusted to her by the Human Rights Council, which has recently reaffirmed its confidence in her by extending her mandate for a second three-year term. The justifications for the sanctions lack all merit in international law besides containing errors of fact and demonstrably false allegations demeaning of the person and reputation of Ms. Albanese. These sanctions violate international legal norms and threaten the well-established rules of functional immunity that protect UN experts from reprisals while carrying out their official duties, in particular immunity from “legal process of every kind” under section 22(b) of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities. Such measures against Ms. Albanese as Special Rapporteur may constitute an unlawful act of extraterritorial coercion, for which the U.S. should itself be held internationally accountable. The attack on Ms. Albanese follows the February 2025 imposition of U.S. sanctions against the International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor and four of its judges. These actions exhibit an unacceptable pattern of disregard for international law and established international procedures and institutions. The ICC measures are designed to protect victims of human rights abuses and should be respected by Israel and United States even though they are not parties to the Rome Statute that provides a legal framework for ICC operations. Rather than abide by their obligations and engage with the extremely significant conclusions and related recommendations of the Special Rapporteur’s latest report, the US has resorted to reprisals which it has effectively admitted are motivated by prioritizing its economic and political strategic interests over its obligations under international law. This unilateral action is part of a broader effort to weaken and control the UN and other international accountability and reporting mechanisms that seek to protect vulnerable populations and uphold justice, including when they contravene strategic interests. The United States’ sanctions seem deliberately designed to undermine the essential work of Special Rapporteurs in highlighting the flagrant, severe, and prolonged crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza as well as well as to shield complicit states and corporations from all forms of accountability. In effect, these actors facilitate the commission of the most serious of international crimes, not only by funding and supplying the perpetrator, Israel, but also by their visible and back-channel efforts to discredit and dilute efforts to expose such international crimes and recommend punitive responses. As the International Court of Justice’s findings have made clear, stopping such crimes engages the legal responsibility of all states, not just those accused of perpetrating the crime. Special Rapporteur Ms. Albanese has been a highly praised mandate holder in what is perhaps the most controversial position within the Special Procedures framework of the Human Rights Council. She has carried out her difficult role in a thoroughly professional manner, celebrated worldwide as an influential and expert advocate of human rights for decades, particularly on behalf of those most victimized. Prior to becoming Special Rapporteur, she worked for a decade as a human rights expert for the United Nations, including in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees. Her record bears eloquent witness to her exceptional competence, experience, and integrity under fire, undoubted factors in her selection as Special Rapporteur for this ultra-sensitive position by the Human Rights Council. Unwarranted attacks on and punitive actions directed at a Special Rapporteur that appear motivated by the geopolitical interests of states are unacceptable
A Decade of Legal Aid for Refugees in Jordan: Lessons for Humanitarian Response and the Road Ahead
Over the past decade, Jordan has led the way in integrating legal aid into its refugee response. This article outlines key lessons from that journey and argues for legal aid to be recognized as a core humanitarian service, particularly in times of crisis and transition. As the Syrian refugee crisis enters a critical new phase, with expectation for more families preparing to return, it is worth revisiting a dimension of humanitarian action too often overlooked: legal aid. Over the past twelve years, Jordan has become a case study in how access to legal services shapes the daily lives, rights, and prospects of refugees, and why legal aid must be treated as an integral part of protection in humanitarian settings. Legal Aid: An Essential but Overlooked Lifeline When conflict or disaster forces people to flee, they often cross borders without official documents, relationships proof between individuals, or legal status. This invisibility can may lead to the birth of children without birth certificates, marriages going unregistered, families unable to claim inheritance rights, and people at constant risk of arrest or exploitation. International humanitarian standards — like the Sphere Handbook — define minimum thresholds for shelter, water, sanitation, and health. Yet they remain largely silent on legal needs. Evidence shows this gap has far-reaching consequences: refugees without official documents struggle to access education, healthcare, work permits, or social protection. They are more vulnerable to forced labor, early marriage, trafficking, and the risk of statelessness. These are conditions that entrench poverty and social tension. Jordan’s Journey: Embedding Legal Aid from the Start When the Zaatari Refugee Camp was established in 2012 to host tens of thousands of Syrians, legal risks emerged immediately. With no civil registration inside the camp, children were being born in risk of losing their nationality. Marriages, divorces, and deaths were going non-registered. Refugees risked detention if they left the camp without authorization. Recognizing these challenges, national civil society organizations, working alongside the Jordanian government and UNHCR, moved fast to embed legal aid as a core part of the refugee response. ARDD (Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development) — a Jordanian NGO — was among the first to provide dedicated legal services inside Zaatari Camp. It successfully advocated for the placement of civil status department offices inside the camp to record births, deaths and other related documentations, and supported the establishment of Sharia courts to register marriages and other vital events. This model was later replicated in Azraq Camp, ensuring that legal identity and protection services became standard in all major refugee camps in Jordan. Over time, this commitment expanded beyond camp borders: legal aid services reached Syrians living in urban areas and extended to vulnerable Jordanians in host communities, recognizing that poverty and exclusion often cut across nationality. Role of Partnerships and Coordination This progress was made possible through close collaboration with government institutions, the judiciary, UNHCR, and international donors. Strategic coordination among them helped ensure legal services were recognized, funded, and integrated into camp infrastructure and broader national frameworks. A National Team Trained for Protection These services were made possible by a large and growing team of Jordanian lawyers, paralegals, and legal counselors who have been trained and equipped over the years to handle the complex legal challenges that come with protracted displacement. Today, this national network operates through ARDD’s offices across the country, providing free legal counseling, representation before various courts, and awareness sessions in camps, cities, governorates, and remote communities alike. legal teams have contributed to resolving family cases, landlord-tenant disputes, detention and administrative arrest, labor rights claims, and tenancy problems — for both refugees and local families. They have also played a vital role in countering fraud and misinformation, especially at times of uncertainty, when rumors can spread quickly and expose communities to exploitation. Impact and Lessons Jordan’s experience reflects what global research consistently confirms: legal aid is not a luxury but a fundamental tool for protection. Refugees with valid official documents and access to justice are more likely to enroll their children in school, access healthcare, secure decent work, and resolve disputes peacefully. By contrast, lack of official documents deepens marginalization, undermines social cohesion, and can even affects stability. For example, during the early years of establishing the Zaatari camp, the absence of clear legal channels led to the emergence of complex legal practices and violations. The establishment of a clear legal framework—with the support of legal aid providers, civil status offices, and Sharia courts—helped to restore and organize legal conditions in the camp, reduce violations, and reinforce the rule of law within it. Since 2012, ARDD has provided legal counselling to over 65,000 refugees in Zaatari Camp, resolved more than 2,000 legal cases, and supported the issuance of over 3,500 civil documentation records—while serving an average of 100,000 individuals annually across Jordan. A New Phase: Preparing for Safe and Lawful Return Today, as voluntary return becomes an option for some, legal aid remains vital but takes new forms. Refugees who wish to return need to resolve pending debts, verify civil and criminal records, secure valid documents, and navigate exit and re-entry procedures. In Jordan’s camps and urban areas, ARDD’s legal teams continue to offer counseling and legal awareness sessions to help families understand their rights and obligations — ensuring that returns are voluntary, safe, and legally secure. At the same time, the legal needs of those who remain in the camps and beyond are no less urgent or necessary than others. Housing disputes, labor rights, family cases, and fraud prevention remain daily priorities, especially with increasing funding pressures and host communities continuing to bear the social and economic impacts of prolonged displacement. A Blueprint for Humanitarian Response Jordan’s decade-long experience demonstrates the necessity of considering legal aid as a fundamental pillar of humanitarian response, on par with shelter, water, food, and healthcare. It safeguards the dignity and rights of refugees while strengthening the resilience of host communities, who also benefit from equitable access to justice. ARDD’s
ARDD’s GNQP and L4P host presentation of new UN Special Rapporteur report: From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide
On 1 July 2025, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, presented her latest report during an online meeting hosted by ARDD and Law for Palestine (L4P). The event brought together members of ARDD’s Global Network on the Question of Palestine (GNQP) and members of L4P’s board and team. Entitled From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, the report investigates the corporate machinery sustaining Israel’s settler-colonial project of displacement and replacement of Palestinians in the occupied territory. While political leaders and governments shirk their obligations, numerous corporate entities have profited from Israel’s economy of illegal occupation, apartheid, and now, genocide. The complicity exposed in the report is only the tip of the iceberg; ending it requires holding the private sector and its executives accountable. International law recognises varying degrees of responsibility—each demanding scrutiny and accountability—especially in this case, where an entire people’s self-determination and very existence are at stake. This is a necessary step towards ending the genocide and dismantling the global systems that have enabled it. In her introductory remarks, the Special Rapporteur highlighted that the report examines corporate entities across multiple sectors: arms manufacturers, tech firms, construction companies, extractive and service industries, banks, pension funds, insurers, universities, and charities. These entities enable the denial of self-determination and perpetuate structural violations in the occupied Palestinian territory, including occupation, annexation, and crimes of apartheid and genocide. The report also details a wide range of related crimes and human rights violations, from discrimination, wanton destruction, forced displacement, and pillage to extrajudicial killings and starvation. Following Albanese’s presentation, a lively Q&A session took place, with participants commending the report, requesting clarifications, and initiating discussions on how it could serve as a framework and platform for collective action to end the ongoing genocide, apartheid, occupation, and related crimes. Participants emphasised the importance of building on the existing momentum of global transformative solidarity with Palestine and the Palestinian people. The full report is available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5923-economy-occupation-economy-genocide-report-special-rapporteur
War Breeds Refugees: A Region on the Brink of Mass Displacement
A Statement by MARFA On World Refugee Day
This World Refugee Day comes at a time of grave escalation and deepening danger. As the region teeters on the edge of yet another catastrophic conflict, this time between Iran and Israel, the threat of mass displacement looms larger than ever. The drums of war are not only echoing through Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, but also shaking the very foundations of neighboring states and faraway nations. With each missile launched and each border crossed by violence, the number of refugees is destined to surge. Let there be no mistake: wars create refugees, and we are now standing on the verge of an era-defining humanitarian crisis. The Migration and Refugee Forum for the Arab World (MARFA) issues an urgent call to action. As conflicts ignite and compound across the Arab region, the already staggering numbers of forcibly displaced persons are set to rise, pushed not only by bombs and bullets but by the collapse of political solutions, the erosion of international protection frameworks, and the continued failure of global powers to uphold justice. From the relentless bombardment of Gaza to the fragmentation of Sudan, from the smoldering frontlines in Yemen and Syria to the intensifying pressure in Lebanon and Jordan, the region is at a breaking point. Communities that have borne the weight of refugee protection for years, with dwindling resources and vanishing support, are now being asked to brace for yet another wave of displacement, this time on a potentially unprecedented scale. The violence currently unfolding is not an isolated flare-up. It is the result of decades of impunity, geopolitical manipulation, and disregard for human life. The targeting of civilians, the weaponization of siege, and the slow annihilation of entire populations, most visibly in Gaza, have become normalized, while accountability remains absent. As threats escalate between Iran and Israel, a regional war could unleash new, large-scale displacement that will overwhelm fragile states, destabilize neighboring societies, and send shockwaves across the Mediterranean and beyond. Let us be clear: the international community is not just failing to respond, it is complicit in the conditions producing this displacement. Refugees are not an accidental byproduct of conflict, they are the human face of failed diplomacy, ignored warnings, and abandoned peace. Despite this bleak reality, it is local communities (families, neighbors, schools, clinics) who continue to shoulder the burden of dignity and protection. Their solidarity is heroic, but it is not infinite. They are not substitutes for international action. Nor should they be left to manage the fallout of wars they did not start, or crises they did not create. MARFA calls for immediate and decisive measures. Stop the wars. Protect civilians. End forced displacement. Provide host communities with the tools, funding, and political backing they need, not just to survive the next influx, but to build just, inclusive futures. This means real investment in infrastructure, legal protections, and social cohesion. It also means dismantling the structures of occupation, exclusion, and violence that are at the root of displacement. On this World Refugee Day, we refuse to speak in neutral terms. This is not a time for reflection, it is a time for alarm. The risk of a new regional war, with mass refugee flows stretching from the Middle East to North Africa and Europe is real, and it is imminent. We urge governments, international institutions, civil society, and concerned individuals: Act now. Speak out. Invest in peace, not just aid. Treat displacement not as a symptom, but as a warning. Refugees are not crises to be managed, they are lives to be protected. And their protection begins with political will. The future of the people of the region and of a shared global humanity, depends on what we choose to do in this moment.
Urgent Appeal to the World: End Israel’s Reckless Wars and Ensure Accountability for its Crimes
A Statement by ARDD
The international community should immediately pull Israel back from its ongoing campaign of starvation and elimination in Gaza and its unprovoked aggression against Iran, and take all measures necessary, individually and collectively, in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure compliance by Israel with its international obligations. The ongoing Israeli military campaigns against the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen were expanded dramatically, last Friday, with an unprovoked assault on Iran constituting an act of aggression in fragrant violation of the UN Charter. Not only does this add a sixth’ theater of war, inflicting unprecedented death and destruction on the Iranian people, Israel’s latest onslaught also served to deflect attention away from the ongoing genocide on the Palestinian population in Gaza and the ever more aggressive attacks on the West Bank. Only hours before initiating its attack on Iran, on June 12th, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/ES-10/L.34 with an overwhelming majority of 149 Member States in favour, 12 against and 19 abstentions. The resolution, entitled Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations, not only reiterates earlier demands for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire, but also demands the unconditional release not only of the hostages held by Hamas and other groups but also of those “arbitrarily detained”, a reference to the thousands detained by Israel without charge. The resolution strongly condemns “any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the unlawful denial of humanitarian access”. Critically, the resolution “Stresses the need for accountability in order to ensure Israel’s respect of international law obligations, and in this regard calls upon all Member States to individually and collectively take all measures necessary, in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure compliance by Israel with its obligations.” Although the resolution as such is not binding, this call for accountability is grounded in peremptory norms of international laws that create binding obligations for all Member States. Except for Hungary voting against, and the Czeck Republic, Romania and Slovakia abstaining, all EU Member States voted for the resolution, signifying the strongest European commitment to date towards holding Israel accountable for the wide range of atrocity crimes it perpetrated against the Palestinian People. Against this backdrop, the expressions of support by leaders of many of the same European States for Israel’s unprovoked aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, stand in stark contrast. Their stand is not just legally and morally indefensible, but outright dangerous as it might serve as encouragement to other states to join the war as is reportedly under consideration.
Hate speech against women: between theory and practice
In light of the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, which takes place every year on the 18th of June, it is crucial in this day and age, and with the rising accessibility of social media, to acknowledge the detrimental effects of hate speech on vulnerable groups in society, as hate speech often targets inherent characteristics of certain groups to ensure their exclusion from the public sphere. The United Nations’ Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as: “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”[1] Women, being a prime target of exclusionary rhetoric, are constantly bombarded with hateful speech targeting their appearance, intelligence, participation, and often their existence. From Hypatia, to burning women at the stake, to violent hate speech against women flying under the radar of major social media platforms[2], misogynistic hate speech is ahistoric; it has had many forms and manifestations across history, that it becomes difficult to pinpoint the exact rationale behind the eternal subjection and belittling of women and defamation campaigns from men. Existing in a patriarchal society means that this form of violence is so normalized that any attempt to challenge it is met with even more hate and is considered subversive. However, there is a point of contention regarding the subjectivity of hate speech; what constitutes hate speech, given the loose and broad-ranging nature of this concept? Theorizing Hate Speech The scholar Richardson-Self (2018)[3] made the distinction between oppressive speech and hate speech; to them, not all oppressive speech is hate speech, but all hate speech is oppressive. However, the severity of the oppression of hate speech is often undermined as people plead the “freedom of speech” argument to justify hate speech. Therefore, hate speech is thought to do certain acts: silence, malign, disparage, humiliate, intimidate, incite violence, discriminate, vilify, degrade, persecute, threaten, and the like. Thus, if any form of expression performs any of the above, and this expression targets a historically oppressed group, then prosecuting such an act is not an attack on “freedom of speech” but a protocol to protect vulnerable people from hate crimes. To identify hate speech in Jordan more easily, the Jordanian government repealed and replaced Jordan’s old (2015) cybercrime law with a new and improved cybercrime law (2023), which implements additional measures to combat online-related crimes. Despite the significant improvements, the new law, while preventative, does not clearly define hate speech, nor does it draw the line between hate speech and freedom of speech. The articles that came closest to defining hate speech are articles 15, 16, and 17[4], which considers defamation, slander, assassination of character, hatred, justification of violence, stirring racism or sedition, and insulting religion as punishable by law. However, none of these terms is explicitly defined, and none mentions discrimination according to sex or gender. Hate speech against women Even when it comes to hate speech against women, there are criteria as to what constitutes hate speech. Some scholars[5] conceptualize this categorization by differentiating between sexist speech and misogynistic speech and deeming the latter as oppressive hate speech. They argue that the interdivisional nature of misogynistic speech creates an arbitrary classification for women based on their conformity with the patriarchal system; the more a woman conforms, the better she is, and vice versa. Not only does this reduce women to passive agents of the patriarchy, but it also leads to women themselves leveraging the patriarchal system[6] to prove their “goodness” and create further division between women. To paint a clearer picture of the argument above, the blog will draw upon the involvement of women in politics as an example. Politics, which is considered socially a masculine field, begrudgingly accepts women’s participation under several conditions, the main one being not challenging the status quo of the political system while simultaneously upholding its ideals of oppression, including what is patriarchal. Thus, if a woman wants to not only enter the political scene, but sustain her position, she cannot delve into topics deemed provocative or controversial, including systematic patriarchal oppression, which ironically enough, is described that way due to systematic patriarchal oppression. Consequently, this arbitrary classification translates into a woman who is “fit” for politics and a woman who isn’t, depending on their level of conformity. This, slowly but surely, gets cemented into the collective consciousness, as more women who attempt to “disrupt” the status quo get bombarded with hate speech rooted in misogyny, which eventually leads to women avoiding politics altogether, which is, in an indirect way, considered silencing. Hate speech is more severe when a woman is in the spotlight, a politician[7], a journalist[8], an activist[9], or a public figure[10]. To mention a few examples among the litany of hate campaigns against women, according to a report done by ISD, many Jordanian female candidates faced widespread misogynistic rhetoric that reinforced harmful societal norms, and many online comments directed at female candidates went beyond questioning their competence into targeted harassment[11]. Another study conducted by Solidarity is Global Institute (SIGI)[12] reveals the dimensions of digital electoral violence against female candidates in the 2024 Jordanian parliamentary elections, which extended to defamation, stereotyping, mockery, etc. SIGI argues that this type of violence leads to diminishing the voters’ trust in the female candidate and thus lowers the independent participation of women in politics. This was proven correct as no female candidates succeeded in open competition, and the 25 women who ran outside the quota system were unsuccessful. Female journalists are not exempt from hate speech, as the Network for Combating Digital Violence Against Female Journalists in Jordan reports that 55% of journalists surveyed for their study reported facing some form of online violence at least once in their careers, which included hate speech and defamation[13]. Conclusion Hate speech is a structural problem that
When Gaza Became a Testing Ground for Relief Without Humanitarian Principles
On May 27, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) launched its first large-scale relief delivery. What followed exceeded what even our worst fears: it was utter chaos. Images showed civilians running without clear direction in a desperate search for food on the outskirts of Rafah. Reportedly, machine guns were fired in the air in warning. At least three Palestinians were killed and 48 others injured during the mayhem. The order collapsed. There was no meaningful coordination, dignified process, or safety for recipients. Instead of restoring humanity, this operation deepened the crisis. But this wasn’t just a logistical failure. It was the materialization of a deeply flawed and dangerous vision that humanitarian professionals, UN officials, and civil society actors had already sounded the alarm about. And yet, the GHF model proceeded, with political backing, financial support, the willful disregard of warnings, and the complicit silence of the international community. GHF is part of a broader strategy, a strategy that replaces a multilateral, rights-based humanitarian system with a militarized, privatized apparatus of control. This is not aid rooted in principles of neutrality, impartiality, or independence. It is a relief redesigned to fit the constraints of siege, managed by private contractors, guarded by security firms, and coordinated with the occupying power’s directives. The tragic scenes that unfolded on May 27 were not unforeseen. They were the chronicle of a disaster foretold. In fact, during the weekend leading up to this mockery of humanitarianism, several major international news outlets published in-depth investigations confirming that GHF was a carefully planned operation led by military strategists and business interests in Israel and the US, with no genuine humanitarian goal. Humanitarian access had not just collapsed: it had been reengineered, commodified, and co-opted. To add insult to injury, photos on social media showed how some food items distributed in Gaza were products from SUGAT, a leading company that boasts contracts with the Israeli military. Journalists furthermore reported meagre amounts of food being distributed, barely enough for a family to survive more than two days. The idea that besieged Palestinians, displaced, starved, and bombed, would be handed rations sourced from a company embedded in the very machinery of occupation is beyond cynical. The rations distributed also indicate this is not humanitarian relief; it is enforced rationing and dependency under the guise of aid. GHF is not a neutral humanitarian actor. It is a geopolitical tool packaged in donor-friendly language about “efficiency” and “innovation.” The aid was about managing survival under surveillance. And in doing so, it mocked decades of effort to build a humanitarian architecture meant to shield the world from the worst of humanity. This is not a one-off error. It is a systemic collapse, made possible by the silence and complicity of those who should have known better. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned Israel’s restrictions on humanitarian access. So, the question now is not just what went wrong on May 27. It is: how did we get here, and how far are we willing to let this go? Will the international community continue to normalize the siege of Gaza and a system that turns humanitarian aid into a business model, and crisis into a marketplace for humiliation, influence, and profit? This moment demands more than regret in “lessons learned.” It demands a reckoning: a bold, collective reclaiming of humanitarianism as a moral and political act.
The Nakba Never Ended: History Repeats Itself, Justice is Denied, and the World is Silent
A Statement by ARDD
It is at this darkest hour that we commemorate the Nakba and pay tribute to its victims, not only those of 1948 but to all those who perished as a result of the ongoing Nakba up to the current Genocide in Gaza and atrocities in the West Bank (and Lebanon). We salute the steadfast survivors of the Nakba, in Gaza, in Al Quds, in the West Bank, and wherever they are – including the millions of Palestinian refugees and the tens of thousands languishing in Israeli prisons. We greet the 30,000 predominantly Palestinian UNRWA employees and other humanitarian workers, many of whom have risked their lives to support their compatriots under the most difficult circumstances. We extend solidarity to our sisters and brothers in the Palestinian solidarity movement around the world who, increasingly subject to persecution for the mere fact of speaking out against the genocide, continue to fight for justice and Palestinian liberation. This year’s commemoration of Nakba Day, the 77th anniversary of the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine, takes place at a time when a large part of the population of Gaza is starving. The vast majority of children under two and breastfeeding mothers are not receiving adequate nutrition. Hospitals have run out of blood, the UN and other humanitarian agencies have exhausted their reserves, while Israel is attempting to dismantle the existing UN-run aid distribution system. Deaths from famine are already occurring and are expected to rise sharply if conditions persist. The ongoing famine is the result of Israel’s latest blockade preventing the entry of food, water, fuel, medicine, electricity, and other life-saving supplies following its unilateral decision to end the ceasefire with Hamas on 2 March 2025. Israel feels emboldened to use starvation as a weapon of war by the acquiescence and the silence of most political leaders in the West and elsewhere, in defiance of both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. This manufactured famine is part of Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza that has been raging for the past 19 months. In the process, it has killed at least 53,000 Palestinians, with many more feared dead under the rubble, injured tens of thousands, destroyed most of the Strip’s housing stock and public infrastructure, and to a large extent succeeded in inflicting conditions of life that will lead to the further destruction of its population. Over the same period, there has been a dramatic escalation of Israeli military and settler violence in the West Bank, resulting in an unprecedented spike in forced displacement. As another alarming escalation, the Israeli cabinet has decided to assume complete authority over land registration in Area C of the West Bank — which constitutes approximately 60% of the occupied territory and houses the majority of illegal Israeli settlements. This move paves the way for the formal annexation of the area and further entrenches Israel’s settler-colonial project, undermining the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. A key element of the war and violence since 7 October 2023 has been Israel’s attacks on UNRWA. Israel has had a conflictual relationship with UNRWA almost since the start of the Israeli occupation in 1967, even though the agency was initially encouraged by the Israeli government to continue its operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. After a gradual increase in Israeli attacks on the agency over the years, the current Israeli government appears to have adopted a policy towards dismantling UNRWA, not just in the OPT but across the board. Israel has justified its attacks on UNRWA with reference to either antisemitism or terrorism, but its real objective appears to be the wholesale erasure of the issue of Palestinian refugees as part of its settler colonial endeavor. The recent legislation adopted by the Israeli parliament represents a critical escalation in that process, with the ban expected to have wide-ranging legal, political, institutional, humanitarian, financial, and other implications. The exact implications of this ban are still unclear, and UNRWA continues to operate. Beyond the operational and humanitarian implications in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Israeli attacks on UNRWA at large, with the help of Israel supporters in the US, threaten the very survival of the agency. We call on the world to break the silence and on every person of conscience to do what is in their power to put an end to the ongoing Nakba in all its manifestations: by speaking up and exposing falsehoods, by using the law to fight injustice, by demonstrating, by educating, by engaging political representatives and others with influence on their governments, or by simply bearing witness. Together, we can make a difference.