 By Tazeen Hasan
Senior Researcher and Policy Analyst, Justice for All Canada Since October 7, Justice for All Canada has consistently called on the Canadian government to sanction Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for their direct role in promoting illegal settlements, inciting settler violence, and enabling the unfolding genocide in Gaza. As part of the policy team, I have worked to highlight their actions in multiple documents and advocacy efforts. So when Canada—alongside the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and the United States—announced sanctions against these two ministers last week, I should have been pleased. Instead, I am deeply concerned. While symbolically notable and historically unprecedented, these sanctions are politically calculated and profoundly insufficient. They fail to reflect the severity of crimes in Gaza—and worse, they may serve as a substitute for real action. The joint statement highlights the ministers’ role in inciting settler violence in the occupied West Bank. While their support for land theft and forced displacement demands condemnation, the omission of Gaza—the site of over 50,000 Palestinian deaths, most of them women and children—is staggering. In Gaza, we are witnessing Israeli efforts to block aid, destroy infrastructure, and repeatedly target convoys. The Israeli military has fired on civilians gathering for food and water. To ignore this while selectively sanctioning individuals over West Bank violence signals a disturbing willingness to normalize genocide. This is not a bureaucratic oversight; rather, it is a deliberate political choice to avoid holding Israel accountable. While human rights experts and the International Court of Justice raise the alarm, Canada’s silence on Gaza in the sanctions statement is deafening. The sanctions apply to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in their personal capacities. Yet, they are not rogue actors—they are senior figures shaping Israeli government policy. Settler violence and expansion are not fringe policies; they are longstanding state strategies since 1967. By isolating these two figures, Canada shields the Israeli state from direct accountability. This, in turn, undermines Canada’s stated commitment to human rights and international law. Moreover, Canadian-made weapons and dual-use technologies may still reach Israeli forces. These tools are used in the bombing of hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and civilian infrastructure. While Canada has halted the issuance of new arms export permits, it has not imposed a full embargo. Existing permits may still funnel Canadian-made components into Israel’s military supply chain. A comprehensive embargo would send a far clearer message: Canada will not be complicit in atrocities. Similarly, a trade embargo on goods from illegal settlements—or a broader review of trade ties with Israel’s military-industrial complex—would demonstrate real resolve. By contrast, targeting two far-right ministers with apparently no assets in Canada and little incentive to visit is symbolic at best, hollow at worst. Since October, Canadians from all walks of life—including Indigenous leaders, Jewish voices of conscience, students, and labour unions—have called for action. Mass protests, campus encampments, and global solidarity campaigns have forced governments to respond. By not addressing Gaza, by not holding the Israeli government accountable, and by failing to impose arms and trade embargoes, it raises suspicion that these sanctions are not the result of a moral awakening but rather political appeasement—measures meant to pacify public outrage rather than prevent atrocities. Canada cannot uphold a “rules-based international order” while applying international law selectively. By failing to sanction the Israeli state or restrict military and trade cooperation, Canada enables continued impunity. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice, and the Court has found it plausible. Under the Genocide Convention, Canada must not only punish genocide but prevent it. Sanctions that avoid confronting the machinery behind the violence are not preventive—they are distractions. The situation in Gaza is dire. Aid is blocked. Civilians are targeted. Entire neighborhoods have been flattened. The West Bank continues to suffer land confiscation, settler attacks, and systemic apartheid. Sanctions targeting just two ministers—without naming the broader structure of state violence—are inadequate and dangerously misleading. Canada must do more. It must impose a full arms embargo. It must reassess its trade relations. It must stop treating Israeli state policy as compatible with Canadian values. Anything less is complicity. Finally, Canada should support a UN-led Responsibility to Protect (R2P) response to prevent further atrocities. The time for symbolic gestures has passed. Canada must act decisively—and now.  By Tazeen Hasan
Canadians are shocked to hear PM Mark Carney’s statement suggesting that a two-state solution can only happen if the Palestinian state is a “Zionist” one. Such a remark is not only bewildering—it is profoundly unjust, deeply offensive, and reveals the persistent moral double standard that Western leaders apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What does it mean to demand that a colonized, dispossessed, and brutalized population must embrace the very ideology that has been used to justify their ongoing oppression? Zionism, as a political ideology, underpins the establishment and expansion of a Jewish ethno-nationalist state in historic Palestine. To impose this framework on Palestinians—whose land has been fragmented, whose people have been expelled, and whose aspirations have been violently suppressed—is akin to asking South Africans to endorse apartheid as a condition for their liberation. No other people seeking self-determination have been told they must accept the worldview of their occupier. Did Canada require Indigenous peoples to become colonialists in order to reclaim their rights? Were Irish nationalists told to embrace British imperialism? Would the world have required Black South Africans to adopt white nationalist ideology before dismantling apartheid? Carney’s expectation that Palestinians adopt Zionism in exchange for freedom is not only ahistorical—it is morally repugnant. This disturbing suggestion reflects a broader Western pattern: Palestinians are subjected to impossible moral tests while Israel is allowed to act with near impunity. Even as Israel stands accused of genocide by the International Court of Justice, continues to bomb refugee camps, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure, and expands illegal settlements, it remains a welcome partner. Meanwhile, Palestinians—under siege, occupation, and exile—must prove they are peaceful, secular, democratic, and now, apparently, Zionist? This is not diplomacy; it is ideological coercion. It is a form of victim-blaming that seeks to erase Palestinian political agency and rewrite the terms of justice. International law is clear: all peoples have the right to self-determination, free from external domination and without ideological preconditions. Palestinians are entitled to their own identity, political philosophy, and vision for statehood—just as Israelis are. To demand ideological conformity as the price of statehood is to deny the very foundation of freedom. Canadians expect better from our leaders. We pride ourselves on standing for human rights, international law, and decolonization. We must not betray those values by endorsing frameworks that privilege one group’s supremacy over another’s existence. If Prime Minister Carney truly supports a two-state solution, he must first recognize that peace requires justice—not ideological assimilation. Palestinians do not need to become Zionists. They need to be free. GAZA
On arrache les bourgeons Assèche le sol Blesse les racines On détruit maisons Hôpitaux écoles Infrastructures Et ce n’est pas génocidaire On isole On affame Viole les droits On empoisonne l’air Assassine sans distinction Abandonnant les blessés Que voulez-vous de plus C’est un génocide Je voudrais pleurer Le ruisseau est asséché J’essaie de crier Mes poumons se taisent Alors j’écris Pour ne pas étouffer davantage ©Monuit Gautier / 2025 By Tazeen
The latest phase of Israel’s military and political campaign in Gaza is marked not by bombs alone but by the deliberate weaponization of humanitarian aid — a chilling tactic aimed at furthering what can only be described as a policy of ethnic cleansing. On its surface, the so-called "humanitarian plan" announced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may seem like a concession. In reality, it is a macabre strategy of control, starvation, and forced displacement. The plan is grotesquely simple: starve Gaza’s population into submission, then funnel desperate civilians into a single, flattened strip of land — the ruins of Rafah — to collect food rations under the watch of the Israeli military and a U.S.-based private contractor. This is not relief. It is a trap. After months of a total blockade that brought Gaza to the brink of famine, Israel’s war cabinet finally approved the entry of “minimal” aid on May 6 — not out of compassion, but for “diplomatic reasons.” In other words, to deflect mounting allegations of war crimes and to neutralize haunting images of skeletal children and mass graves that have begun circulating globally. According to the Gaza Government Media Office, more than 70,000 children have been hospitalized for severe malnutrition. This is not an unintended consequence of war. This is policy. The plan, first floated as a joint U.S.-Israeli initiative, hands over aid distribution to the newly minted, U.S.-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation — bypassing established international aid groups. Instead of delivering food equitably, the plan limits rations to specific households and confines civilians to designated aid collection points, effectively turning Rafah into a concentration camp. On May 4, international organizations operating in Gaza unanimously rejected the plan, stating it “contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic as part of a military strategy.” Two days later, UN aid agencies followed suit, warning that the strategy “appears to be a deliberate attempt to weaponize the aid.” This concern is not new. On April 8, UN Secretary General António Guterres warned that Israeli control over aid distribution risks “further controlling and callously limiting aid down to the last calorie and grain of flour.” He emphasized that the UN would not participate in any arrangement that fails to uphold humanitarian principles: humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality. The world must name this for what it is — not a humanitarian response, but a military tactic that uses starvation as a tool of war. When aid is conditioned on displacement, when food becomes a reward for submission, when survival is determined by the very force causing the suffering — it is no longer aid. It is cruelty masquerading as compassion. To remain silent or neutral in the face of such a strategy is to become complicit. The international community must reject this brutal manipulation of aid and demand unfettered humanitarian access under international law — not under the terms of an occupying power that has already flattened homes, hospitals, and hopes in Gaza. Anything less is not humanitarianism. It is collaboration in a crime.  By Tazeen Hasan
As the world watches in horror, the United Nations warns that 14,000 babies in Gaza could die in the next 48 hours if humanitarian aid does not immediately reach the besieged enclave (as of May 22, 2025). This is not a famine caused by drought or natural disaster—it is a man-made catastrophe, manufactured by Israel’s deliberate blockade of food, medicine, and aid into a civilian population. The time for routine resolutions and muted statements has long passed. The United Nations General Assembly must immediately call an emergency session and move to revoke Israel’s UN membership under Article 6 of the Charter, symbolically but decisively. While such a move would require ratification by the Security Council—a step certain to be blocked by the United States—this symbolic action would still carry historic moral weight. It would communicate that the majority of the world refuses to grant legitimacy to a regime that systematically violates the UN Charter, perpetrates apartheid, and now flirts openly with genocide. If the UN could expel South Africa’s apartheid regime from international institutions, then why does Israel enjoy impunity despite even graver crimes? In parallel, the international community must go beyond words and adopt real economic measures. Sanctions against Israel—targeting not only military and political leaders but also settlers engaged in systematic violence—are an essential step toward ending impunity. The United Kingdom’s recent decision to suspend free trade negotiations with Israel and sanction key Israeli settlers is a model of principled diplomacy. The move sends a clear message: there will be consequences for violating international law and deliberately starving a civilian population. Canada, and all nations that claim to support human rights, must follow suit. Ottawa cannot remain silent while its allies move forward to uphold international norms. While sanctioning individual settlers is a welcome step, we must not lose sight of the broader reality: settler violence is not a fringe phenomenon—it is state-sanctioned and systematically enabled. The expansionist settler-colonial project has been embedded into Israeli state policy, particularly under the dominance of far-right political actors. Figures such as Itamar Ben Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have played central roles in normalizing and incentivizing settler aggression through legal protections, military cover, and financial subsidies. Any serious attempt to curb settler violence must therefore include targeted sanctions on these senior Israeli officials, who are not merely complicit but architecturally responsible for the ongoing colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian lands. This is not about politics—it is about the survival of innocent children and the credibility of international law. If Israel refuses to allow the entry of aid and continues to commit collective punishment against civilians, it must face diplomatic isolation and economic penalties. The foundational promise of the post-war international order was “never again.” But in Gaza, “never again” has become again and again, as the world stands by and fails to uphold the basic rules that were meant to protect the vulnerable from state-led atrocities. The General Assembly has the power to act—and history will not judge kindly those who chose silence over justice. If we fail to act now, we are not just betraying the children of Gaza—we are dismantling the very fabric of international law.  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. |
