 Written by: Tazeen Hasan
Exactly one year earlier, at the beginning of March, when I was writing about the controversy surrounding the screening of No Other Land at the Berlin Film Festival, I could not have imagined that this documentary would go on to win an Oscar. Back then, the backlash was intense—pro-Israel groups were furious, and accusations of bias were flying. But through it all, the filmmakers stood their ground, refusing to be silenced. And now, against all odds, they stood on the grandest stage in the cinema, holding the golden statue in their hands. Watching Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham take the stage at the Academy Awards felt surreal. Their film, which captures the brutal reality of Israel’s forced expulsions in Masafer Yatta, was not just another documentary—it was a witness to history, a defiant act of truth-telling in a world that often looks away. For years, Israel and its supporters in the West have spent millions to convince the world that Israel is a democracy—indeed, the only democracy in the Middle East. But a short, powerful speech on one of the world’s biggest stages shattered that illusion in a way no policy paper or human rights report ever could. The documentary tells the story of the continued demolition of Masafer Yatta, a collection of Palestinian villages in the Hebron mountains of the West Bank, where Basel Adra and his family live. The Israeli government has tried to expel the villagers by force since 1981, having claimed the land for a military training facility and firing range. The film documents how soldiers, settlers, and the state have made life unbearable—tearing down homes, demolishing a local playground, and allowing violent attacks by Jewish settlers. It also shows the killing of Adra’s brother by Israeli soldiers. During their acceptance speech, the filmmakers used their moment on stage to shine a spotlight on the ongoing destruction in Gaza and the occupied West Bank—and to call out the U.S. government’s role in blocking peace. Their words were met with applause from the Oscar audience, but outrage from Israeli officials. Standing beside his co-director, Abraham delivered a powerful truth: “We made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together our voices are stronger. We see each other—the atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end. The Israeli hostages brutally taken in the crime of October 7, which must be freed.” Then came the line that cut through the propaganda: “When I look at Basel, I see my brother, but we are unequal. We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law and Basel is under military law that destroys his life and he cannot control.” In a single breath, Abraham exposed the deep contradiction at the heart of Israel’s claim to democracy. How can a state claim to be democratic while ruling over millions under military occupation? When one group enjoys full rights, while another faces land confiscations, home demolitions, and an entire legal system designed to control them? Predictably, the Israeli government was furious at the win. Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar called the film “sabotage against the State of Israel” and the award “a sad moment for the world of cinema.” He even reminded the public that Israel had passed a law banning government funding for films critical of the state. Despite its broad acclaim, No Other Land is struggling to find a distributor in North America—an all-too-common fate for films that challenge dominant political narratives. But its impact is undeniable. Despite the powerful moment on stage, much of the Western and American media is already working to undermine the impact of Yuval Abraham’s speech. While they cannot ignore the Oscar win itself, they are carefully downplaying his words, reducing his critique of Israel’s apartheid system to vague calls for “peace” or framing his speech as merely a plea for coexistence. Major global news outlets, which claim to champion free speech and human rights, have long censored Palestinian voices—but now, faced with a moment they cannot erase, they are twisting the narrative to fit their comfort zone. The same media that amplifies Israel’s talking points without question suddenly finds itself reluctant to report an Israeli filmmaker’s blunt admission that he and his Palestinian co-director are not equal under the same regime. The hypocrisy is glaring, and it exposes the deep bias in how mainstream journalism chooses to frame stories of occupation, oppression, and resistance. Basel Adra, speaking from the West Bank, made a plea to the world: “The film reflects the harsh reality that we have been suffering for decades, a reality that continues until today, and we call on the world to take concrete steps to end this injustice.” The Oscar win for No Other Land will not stop the bulldozers in Masafer Yatta or bring back the lives lost in Gaza. But it marks a shift. It punctures the narrative that Israel has worked so hard to craft. And at this moment, I can’t help but feel a rush of joy and hope. No Other Land is more than just a film—it’s a victory for truth, for resistance, for the voices that refuse to be erased. Watching the filmmakers lift their Oscar, I felt a sense of triumph, as if for a brief, shining moment, justice had prevailed on that grand Hollywood stage. The world heard the truth last night. And no matter how much those in power try to silence it, that truth will never be unseen, never be unheard. The voices of Masafer Yatta, of Gaza, of all those struggling against oppression, have been amplified in a way we never imagined. For now, we celebrate. And tomorrow, we continue the fight.  As campaign manager for prisoners of conscience and later as advocacy manager for Western Canada at Justice for All, my responsibilities included submitting complaints of human rights violations to UN working groups and engaging with stakeholders, including victims, their families and lawyers, local journalists and reporters, diaspora activists, and other human rights organizations working on related issues. This experience, coupled with my work as a human rights researcher and policy analyst, has given me firsthand insight into the challenges of international human rights advocacy. I frequently encounter skepticism and frustration from individuals disillusioned with these efforts, particularly those involving the UN and its special mechanisms. Many perceive the UN as ineffective, believing its advocacy lacks tangible impact and fails to bring about meaningful change. This sense of impotence often stems from the complex political realities surrounding global human rights issues and the perceived lack of concrete action.
Advocacy, especially in this arena, is a painstakingly slow process. Advocacy, particularly in the realm of human rights, requires patience and a long-term commitment to addressing systemic issues. While the UN mechanisms, especially its Working Groups, play a crucial role in highlighting and addressing human rights violations, their mandate is often limited by political dynamics and logistical constraints. These mechanisms provide valuable avenues for raising awareness, seeking legal opinions, and engaging governments on critical issues, but they are not without restrictions. To fully leverage the potential of the UN's special mechanisms, it is essential to understand their structures, complaint processes, and inherent limitations. By doing so, we can better navigate these systems and use them effectively in our advocacy efforts to combat human rights violations. This article is part of a series addressing critical questions about the effectiveness and limitations of international law, aimed at raising awareness about various UN complaint mechanisms. In this installment, we will focus on the Special Working Group on Arbitrary Detention—exploring how it operates, its mandate, and the limitations it faces in addressing human rights violations. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) operates as a key human rights mechanism that investigates cases of arbitrary detention worldwide. It receives complaints from individuals, NGOs, and legal professionals about alleged unlawful detentions and sends urgent appeals to governments for clarification and action. The WGAD also conducts country visits, assesses detention conditions, and issues legal opinions on whether a detention violates international human rights standards. Its complaint mechanism allows individuals or organizations to submit detailed cases, which are then reviewed by the Working Group to determine if the detention is arbitrary. However, the WGAD’s opinions are non-binding, and enforcement relies on the willingness of governments to comply, limiting its overall impact. It is important to note that while the WGAD does receive complaints and issue opinions on individual cases, its primary focus is on systemic issues of arbitrary detention. It is not designed to function as a court of appeals for individual cases. Instead, the WGAD's mandate centers on identifying and addressing broader patterns and trends of arbitrary detention, aiming to uncover and rectify the root causes that allow such detentions to occur. While individual cases can be instrumental in highlighting these systemic problems, the WGAD's work ultimately aims to prevent arbitrary detention on a larger scale through its analysis, recommendations, and engagement with states. Who Can File a Complaint to the UNWGAD for Arbitrary Detention? Any individual who believes they are a victim of arbitrary detention, or someone acting on their behalf, can file a complaint with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD). This includes family members, legal representatives, or human rights organizations. Additionally, NGOs, lawyers, or other concerned parties can submit complaints on behalf of detainees who may be unable to file due to restrictions or incapacity. The WGAD accepts complaints related to both individual cases and broader patterns of arbitrary detention, as long as the case involves violations of international human rights law. Definition of Arbitrary Detention The definition of "arbitrary detention" goes beyond simply "illegal." The WGAD's jurisprudence has developed a detailed understanding of arbitrariness, including:
Complaint Process Details
How to File a Complaint with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention To file a complaint with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), individuals or organizations can follow these general steps:
The Role of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Does It Go Beyond Naming and Shaming? The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) plays a pivotal role in addressing the global issue of arbitrary detention. Its mandate, performance, and efforts go beyond simply "naming and shaming," contributing to both legal developments and systemic change. Below is an overview of the Working Group's operations and its broader impact. Mandate: The WGAD’s core mandate is to investigate cases of arbitrary detention, which includes the following responsibilities:
Performance: The WGAD has made substantial contributions to raising awareness and fostering accountability on the issue of arbitrary detention:
Beyond Naming and Shaming: While the WGAD’s work includes highlighting violations, it goes beyond mere naming and shaming in the following ways:
Limitations: Despite its significant role, the Working Group faces several challenges:
Conclusion: The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention plays a critical role in protecting individuals from arbitrary imprisonment. While it faces challenges, the WGAD's efforts go beyond merely naming violations, contributing to legal developments, fostering international dialogue, and promoting long-term systemic change to prevent arbitrary detention. Is Israel even allowed to detain Palestinians in the occupied territories under international law?1/23/2025  Tazeen Hasan reflects on this question and explores Canada's complicity in Israeli war crimes.
While working on cases of Palestinian children detained under Israeli military detention since 2022, I have often encountered heartbreaking stories of injustice and resilience. Today, a colleague from the JFA Media Monitoring Cell asked me an intriguing question: "Is Israel even allowed to detain Palestinians in the occupied territories under international law?" This question lingered with me, prompting deeper reflection. The answer is complex. Yes, international law allows an occupying power to detain individuals under certain conditions. However, Israel’s practices go far beyond what the law permits, resulting in systematic violations. The following points are the outcome of that brainstorming session and further research, shedding light on the ways Israel contravenes international law in its detention policies. International law does permit Israel, as an occupying power, to detain individuals in the occupied Palestinian territories, but only under strict legal safeguards and due process. Yet, Israel’s detention practices consistently flout these legal protections, resulting in widespread violations of international law. This issue is particularly alarming when we consider the human cost. From the arbitrary use of administrative detention to the forcible transfer of detainees and the inhumane treatment of minors, Israel's policies not only disregard international legal standards but also strip individuals of their basic dignity and rights. This article delves into the ways these practices undermine the very principles of justice and fairness that international law seeks to uphold. 1. Administrative Detention: Detention Without Charge or Trial Under international law, administrative detention is allowed only in exceptional circumstances, such as when public security is at immediate risk. However, Israel uses this measure extensively, holding Palestinians, including minors, for months or years without charges or trial. This practice violates Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary detention. 2. Lack of Transparency Many administrative detentions are based on secret evidence that detainees and their lawyers cannot access. This denial of transparency violates Article 14 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the right to a fair defense. 3. Violation of Due Process International law mandates that detainees are entitled to due process, including the right to know the charges against them, access to legal representation, and a fair trial. Israel’s detention practices systematically deny these rights, breaching Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR. 4. Transferring Detainees to Israel Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits transferring detainees from occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power. Israel routinely moves Palestinian prisoners to facilities within its borders, separating them from their families and violating this key provision of international humanitarian law. 5. Lack of Fair Trials in Military Courts Palestinians in the occupied territories are tried in military courts with extremely high conviction rates, often exceeding 99%. These courts lack impartiality and fail to meet the standards of fair trial procedures, violating fundamental rights protected under international law. 6. Imprisonment of Minors Under Military Detention Israel is the only country in the world that systematically prosecutes children in military courts. Palestinian minors are often arrested during night raids, interrogated without the presence of a lawyer or guardian, and subjected to intimidation. This contravenes international conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Israel’s use of administrative detention against Palestinian minors violates the CRC, which emphasizes that detention should only be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. Subjecting children to such detention without charge contravenes their rights to protection and rehabilitation. 7. Torture and Inhumane Treatment of Minors Reports from human rights organizations have documented cases of physical and psychological abuse of detained Palestinian minors, including beatings, threats, and solitary confinement. Such treatment violates the Convention Against Torture and other international human rights treaties. 8. Mass Arbitrary Detentions Israel’s policy of mass arrests, particularly during periods of heightened tensions, often targets civilians, activists, and children indiscriminately. These widespread and arbitrary detentions violate the prohibition on collective punishment under the Fourth Geneva Convention. 9. Practice of Apartheid One of the most striking aspects of Israel’s detention system is the stark disparity in how Palestinians and Israeli settlers are treated under the law. Palestinian civilians, including minors, are prosecuted in Israeli military courts, which lack basic guarantees of fairness and impartiality. In contrast, Israeli settlers—who are living in illegal settlements on Palestinian land—are prosecuted under Israel’s civil legal system, which offers greater protections and rights. This dual legal system amounts to a practice of legal apartheid, where one group is afforded rights and protections under civil law, while another group is subjected to military law, with fewer safeguards and a lack of basic judicial protections. This discriminatory legal framework is not only an injustice but also a violation of international law. The United Nations, the European Union, and various human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have recognized Israel’s policies as a form of apartheid, as defined under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973). This convention defines apartheid as an inhuman act committed to maintaining the domination of one racial group over another and systematically oppressing them, which is precisely what Israel’s treatment of Palestinians amounts to. While international law permits Israel to detain individuals under strict conditions, its practices overwhelmingly violate these legal standards. From administrative detention and lack of transparency to the mistreatment of minors and the transfer of detainees, Israel’s detention policies amount to systematic violations of international law. In conclusion, Israel’s practices of administrative detention, transferring detainees outside occupied territories, and the treatment of minors flagrantly violate several international legal norms. These include the Fourth Geneva Convention (Articles 49 and 76), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 9 and 14), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 37), the Convention Against Torture (Articles 1 and 16), and customary international humanitarian law. Such violations not only undermine the principles of justice but also perpetuate the suffering of vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) also come into play when considering Israel’s dual legal system, where Palestinians are prosecuted under military courts, while Israeli settlers are tried under civilian law. These grave breaches demand urgent international attention and accountability. It is imperative for the global community to ensure that international law is upheld and to advocate for the rights, safety, and dignity of those living under occupation. As Canadians, we must confront the uncomfortable truth that our government is complicit in Israel’s systematic violations of international law. By maintaining strong diplomatic ties with a state that perpetrates these breaches, engaging in trade relations, and supplying and purchasing arms and ammunition, Canada lends tacit approval to these actions. Moreover, by licensing charities that funnel donations to support and expand illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem—and by granting these charities tax-exempt status for decades—our government has effectively subsidized these illegal activities with taxpayer money. When far-right Israeli politicians like Naftali Bennett—a figure whose actions could constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute—are permitted to enter Canada and speak at events such as Israel at 75, our government disregards its own legal and moral obligations. Despite urgent calls from human rights advocates demanding the enforcement of Canadian laws that bar war criminals from entering our borders, these appeals fall on deaf ears. Even more troubling is the fact that Canadian taxpayer dollars are indirectly complicit. Through programs like RCMP training for Palestinian Authority forces, our resources are used to bolster oppressive structures aimed at suppressing Palestinian resistance in the West Bank. This makes Canadian citizens, albeit inadvertently, co-participants in the perpetuation of these injustices. We must recognize that silence and inaction make us complicit. It is imperative that we hold our government accountable, demanding an unwavering commitment to international law, human rights, and ethical governance. To remain indifferent is to betray the very principles of justice and equality that Canada claims to uphold. Tazeen Hasan is a seasoned human rights policy analyst and Advocacy Manager for Western Canada at Justice For All Canada. With extensive journalism experience spanning the Middle East, South Asia, and North America, she has also contributed chapters to two books published in Canada. In 2020, she was honored with the Harvard Spotlight Award for her groundbreaking research on the Uyghur genocide. A frequent speaker at United Nations forums in Geneva and New York, Tazeen reported from Jenin, Palestine, amidst the ongoing Gaza genocide in December 2023.  Tazeen Hasan
The passing of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter marks the end of an era for a man whose legacy is deeply intertwined with both his facilitation of the Camp David Accords and his later criticism of Israeli policies. While the 1978 Camp David Accords, brokered by Carter, resulted in a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, it has been criticized for sidelining Palestinian rights and failing to address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the years following his presidency, Carter increasingly recognized the deepening apartheid-like conditions faced by Palestinians, and this realization drove his shift from diplomatic facilitator to one of Israel's most vocal critics. Below are key instances where Carter’s critiques of Israel have shaped his post-presidential legacy: "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" (2006): In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter accused Israel of imposing an apartheid system on Palestinians in the occupied territories. He argued that Israel's policies, including settlements in the West Bank and the construction of the separation barrier, discriminated against Palestinians and denied them basic human rights. The book sparked strong reactions, with critics accusing Carter of unfairly vilifying Israel, while supporters lauded him for speaking out about the suffering of Palestinians. Carter Center's Advocacy: Through the Carter Center, Carter has consistently advocated for Palestinian rights and a two-state solution. He has called for an end to Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as an end to the blockade of Gaza, which he argues contributes to humanitarian suffering. The Center has also been involved in monitoring elections and promoting peace initiatives in the Middle East. Criticism of Israeli Settlements: Carter has frequently criticized Israel's expansion of settlements in the West Bank, describing them as an obstacle to peace. He has argued that the continued building of settlements in occupied territories is a violation of international law and a significant barrier to achieving a two-state solution. Condemnation of Israeli Military Actions: Carter has been critical of Israel's military operations in Gaza, particularly during operations such as those in 2008-2009 and 2014. He has described the use of disproportionate force and the high civilian casualties in these operations as human rights violations. His criticisms are framed around his belief that Israel’s military actions often result in harm to innocent Palestinians. Support for Boycotts and Sanctions: Carter has expressed support for non-violent measures such as boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) as ways to pressure Israel to change its policies toward Palestinians. While he does not fully endorse the BDS movement, he has indicated support for efforts aimed at holding Israel accountable for its actions in the occupied territories. In February 2024, the Carter Center issued a statement condemning the Israeli government's directive to forcibly transfer Palestinian civilians in Rafah to facilitate a military offensive. The Center expressed concern over the plan, noting that approximately 1.3 million Gazans were residing in overcrowded conditions in Rafah, which had previously been designated as a safe zone. The statement emphasized that such actions undermine prospects for long-term peace and the security and prosperity of all citizens. In summary, while Carter initially played a key role in facilitating the Camp David Accords, which many argue overlooked the rights of Palestinians, his later years were marked by an outspoken stance against Israel's treatment of Palestinians. His advocacy for Palestinian rights and his calls for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reflect his commitment to justice and human rights, even as his views have sparked controversy. Carter’s shift in perspective underscores his evolving understanding of the complex dynamics in the region and his commitment to peace and justice for all people. Tazeen Hasan
Many Canadians remain unaware of a troubling aspect of Canada’s foreign policy—its provision of training and support to the Palestinian Authority (PA) police in the occupied West Bank. While Canada publicly condemns Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem and the West Bank, its actions tell a different story. Through its aid to the PA police, Canada is effectively facilitating the suppression of Palestinian resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation. This complicity in the suppression of Palestinian voices raises serious questions about Canada’s commitment to its own stated principles of international law and human rights. In this blog, we will critically examine Canada’s role in supporting the Palestinian Authority’s security forces and explore the contradictions inherent in its actions. Canada’s provision of aid and training to the Palestinian Authority (PA) police in the occupied West Bank, particularly in areas like Jenin, undermines its own stated position on international law and human rights. While the Government of Canada recognizes Israeli rule and occupation in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights as illegal, its actions fail to align with this principled stance. Instead, by equipping and training PA forces that act as a proxy for Israel in suppressing Palestinian resistance to occupation, Canada is indirectly supporting the entrenchment of Israeli colonial policies. Under international law, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and its continued settlement expansion constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Canada has acknowledged these violations on platforms such as the United Nations, recently reaffirming its condemnation of illegal settlements. Moreover, Canada has sanctioned a handful of Israeli settlers involved in violence against Palestinians, signaling an awareness of the gravity of the situation. However, these actions, though symbolically significant, fall far short of addressing the systemic injustices and policies driving Israeli expansionism and apartheid practices. The Canadian government’s actions betray a troubling inconsistency. While sanctioning a few rogue settlers, Ottawa ignores the incendiary rhetoric and policies of Israeli ministers and senior officials, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who openly advocate for full annexation of the West Bank and support settler violence. By failing to sanction these high-ranking officials or hold the Israeli government accountable for enabling settler violence and expanding illegal settlements, Canada’s response appears superficial—an attempt to maintain a veneer of moral responsibility while avoiding substantive action. This inconsistency is further compounded by Canada’s financial and logistical support for PA security forces. The PA police, often described as collaborators by the Palestinian public, operate under the framework of the Oslo Accords, enforcing Israel’s security interests by suppressing resistance against the occupation. Through this partnership, Canada is effectively complicit in maintaining the occupation it claims to oppose. Instead of supporting the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, Canada is reinforcing a structure that silences legitimate resistance and perpetuates Israeli dominance in the West Bank. If Canada is serious about its commitment to international law and human rights, it must adopt a coherent and principled approach. This means:
By failing to take meaningful action against Israel’s occupation policies and, worse, indirectly supporting them through aid to the PA police, Canada is undermining its credibility as a defender of human rights and international law. To stand on the right side of history, Canada must align its actions with its principles and play a constructive role in advancing a just resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict—one rooted in the end of occupation, respect for international law, and genuine support for Palestinian self-determination. Tazeen Hasan is a seasoned human rights policy analyst and Advocacy Manager for Western Canada at Justice For All Canada. With extensive journalism experience spanning the Middle East, South Asia, and North America, she has also contributed chapters to two books published in Canada. In 2020, she was honored with the Harvard Spotlight Award for her groundbreaking research on the Uyghur genocide. A frequent speaker at United Nations forums in Geneva and New York, Tazeen reported from Jenin, Palestine, amidst the ongoing Gaza genocide in December 2023. Standing Together: Building Indigenous-Muslim Solidarity on Turtle Island (Research Paper)11/6/2024  By Justice For All Canada’s Editorial Team Justice For All Canada is spotlighting this unique publication for its in-depth illustration on how marginalized groups facing issues like Indigenous land displacement and Islamophobia can come together by building alliances that are rooted in justice. In her article entitled "Standing with Each Other: Indigenous-Muslim Relation-Making on Turtle Island," author Memona Hossain offers a thoughtful exploration of solidarity between Indigenous and Muslim communities across Canada.
According to the article, these communities are bridging their unique histories of resilience and resistance to colonial systems. For instance, the Indigenous pursuit of sovereignty and the Muslim struggle against Islamophobia intersect deeply through shared histories of dispossession, marginalization, and resilience. Through this connection, both communities can navigate their respective identity, resist colonial structures, and advocate for justice. This helps them manifest powerful relationship-building and allyship in the face of systemic inequities. Moving beyond documenting the challenges each group faces, this study aptly highlights the active ways these communities stand together by supporting each other's rights and dignity. If you’re an advocate of human rights and community-driven allyship, this article presents a powerful resource for the transformative potential of solidarity work on Turtle Island. We encourage you to access this wonderful analysis on how Indigenous and Muslim communities are uniting for justice. Read the full paper here. Memona Hossain is a PhD Candidate in ecopsychology and has been a lecturer at the School of Environment, University of Toronto. Hossain serves on the Board of Directors for the Muslim Association of Canada, Faith & the Common Good, and the Willow Park Ecology Centre, is an advisor & content contributor for Faithfully Sustainable, and has launched the Islam & Earth project. The Religions and Social Sciences Journal (RSS Journal) is a Canadian open-access academic journal dedicated to interdisciplinary studies at the intersection of religion, social sciences, and cultural studies. Access the journal here. We thank the RSS Journal for publishing this important piece.  On September 17, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution, overwhelmingly demanding that Israel “end its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. More than just a symbolic rebuke, the resolution calls for concrete action, including sanctions against Israel and a prohibition on any member state from engaging in activities that sustain Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza. This bold stance marks a significant shift in how the international community is addressing Israel’s decades-long occupation, drawing concern from Israel and its allies, particularly the United States.
A Step Beyond Symbolism UNGA resolutions are often dismissed as toothless, unenforceable statements without the force of international law. Critics may ask: does this resolution bring any tangible change? The answer lies in the evolution of global attitudes toward Israel’s occupation. While past resolutions have condemned Israel’s actions, this one goes further by making a specific call for action. It demands that member states actively sanction Israel for its violations of international law, a clear departure from the more passive language of previous resolutions. According to Mondoweiss, this resolution, while not enforceable, "adds another log to the growing fire of anger toward Israel." It directly challenges the status quo, placing moral and political pressure on nations that have normalized relations with Israel or are otherwise hesitant to criticize it. Why This Resolution Matters The significance of this resolution lies in the breadth of its support and the specific actions it demands. 124 countries, including major powers like France, China, and Russia, as well as regional players such as Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco, voted in favor of the resolution. These nations, many of which have normalized relations with Israel, are now publicly endorsing a call for sanctions. This broad coalition sends a clear message: Israel’s ongoing occupation and settlement activities are no longer tolerable, and the international community will not remain complicit in sustaining them. Even countries that abstained from the vote, such as the United Kingdom, now find themselves under growing scrutiny. The United States, notably the only permanent member of the UN Security Council to oppose the resolution, finds itself increasingly isolated in its unwavering support for Israel. This vote also comes in the wake of a pivotal ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which declared all of Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza illegal and non-temporary. The ICJ further ruled that states are obligated not to assist in maintaining Israel’s occupation. The UNGA’s resolution bolsters this legal verdict, reinforcing the demand that member states must take tangible steps to end their complicity in Israel’s crimes. Israel’s Unease Israel’s reaction to the resolution has been telling. While Israeli officials and their allies in Washington have downplayed the significance of the UNGA vote, behind the scenes, they have been mobilizing diplomatic efforts to mitigate its impact. Earlier this month, Israel pressured members of Congress to intervene with South Africa, urging it to drop its genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. These actions reveal Israel’s genuine concern over the growing international legal and political pressure it faces. This concern is well-founded. The UNGA resolution not only aligns with the ICJ’s ruling but also places unprecedented pressure on member states to act. A country that votes in favor of this resolution but fails to follow through with sanctions or other measures may face serious questions from its citizens and the international community. This resolution could serve as a turning point, forcing Israel and its allies to confront the reality that their impunity can no longer be taken for granted. Toward a New International Consensus While it is true that this resolution cannot compel Israel to comply, it is a significant step toward shifting international opinion and laying the groundwork for future action. The growing association of Israel with apartheid, aggression, and now genocide, makes it increasingly difficult for states and private sector actors to justify deepening ties with Israel. As Israel's behavior becomes more egregious, more countries and companies will view it as a risky partner, limiting its economic and political clout. The UNGA’s resolution, backed by the ICJ’s legal authority, signals that the international legal system is finally taking steps to hold Israel accountable. While past efforts have faltered, this recent vote offers a glimmer of hope for Palestinians and their advocates. The global community is starting to unite around a clear demand: Israel’s occupation must end, and there will be consequences for those who continue to support it. Conclusion The September 17 resolution represents a shift from condemnation to action and places significant pressure on the international community to follow through. While it may not bring immediate change on the ground, it is a clear sign that Israel’s days of unchecked occupation may be coming to an end. With mounting legal, political, and economic pressure, the global consensus is shifting—and Israel and its allies know it. Gerrymandering in Kashmir: Undermining Democracy and the Call for International Intervention9/24/2024  By: Tazeen Hasan, Justice For All Canada, Campaign Manager
Gerrymandering refers to the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one party or group over another, undermining the core principles of democracy. This practice can dilute the political power of certain communities, skew electoral outcomes, and perpetuate inequality. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, recent electoral manipulations by the Indian government are a textbook example of gerrymandering, designed to erode the political influence of the region’s Muslim majority. Following the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special autonomous status, India has undertaken significant changes to the region’s electoral landscape. The changes are not subtle and demonstrate a clear attempt to reshape the political future of the disputed territory to the detriment of its Muslim majority population. According to the 2011 census, Muslims in in Jammu and Kashmir comprise 68.3% of the entire population, while Hindus make up 28.2%. However, the 2022 Delimitation Commission allocated 47 assembly seats to the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley, which has 56.15% of the state's population, and gave 43 seats to the Hindu-majority Jammu region, which has 43.85% of the population. According to veteran Kashmiri analyst, in this 90-member assembly, the 28% Hindu population will now hold 34.44% of the seats. Although Hindus are in the majority in the Jammu division, the Muslim population makes up 34.21%. Through unfair delimitation, the Muslim-majority constituencies in Jammu have been reduced from 12 to 9. As a result, Muslim representation in jammu will decrease from 32.43% to 20.93%. In the previous assembly, out of the 37 total seats in Jammu, 12 were Muslim-majority constituencies. The Mechanisms of Gerrymandering in Kashmir
According to a veteran political analyst, the intent behind these measures is clear: the Indian government is attempting to convert the Muslim majority in Jammu and Kashmir into a minority in the Assembly. By diluting Muslim representation through gerrymandering, India seeks to legitimize its control over the region and suppress voices of dissent. The Disadvantages of Gerrymandering Gerrymandering has far-reaching consequences for democracy, and its implementation in Kashmir is no exception. Some of the critical disadvantages include:
The Call for International InterventionThe gerrymandering in Jammu and Kashmir represents a grave threat to democracy, human rights, and regional stability. As one of the world’s foremost advocates of democracy, Canada must take a stand against these anti-democratic practices. The Canadian government has long championed human rights and democratic values, and it is essential for Canada to act now. Canada should publicly condemn the exploitation of electoral process through gerrymandering in Jammu and Kashmir and call for free and fair elections in the region. Furthermore, as a member of international organizations like the United Nations, Canada can urge the global community to hold the Indian government accountable for its actions, which contravene democratic principles and the right to self-determination. In conclusion, election-manipulation in Kashmir is not merely a local issue but a direct assault on democratic governance and human rights. The international community, including Canada, must take a firm stand in defense of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, ensuring that their voices are heard and their rights respected. Without intervention, the gerrymandering in Kashmir risks becoming a dangerous precedent, signaling that democratic manipulation can go unchecked in regions of political dispute. The world cannot afford to be silent. |
